Tuesday, June 4, 2013

Answer Numbers Six, Seven, and Eight to the Namavaran Network Corporation

Mike L.

For those of you who may not know, I have been tapped by an Iranian media outlet to answer a series of questions around the Arab-Israel conflict and have agreed to do so.  
These are the final questions and then I am done with this particular exercise:
6- Do you think that Wall Street is the main site of them (Zionists)? 
7- “U.S foreign policy” : What is your assessment?  
8- America's foreign policy towards Iran: What is your assessment?
Question number six contains the same presumption - that Jewish people have an inordinate influence in public and political life within the United States - that most of the other questions have, thus my answers to all of these questions reflect the fact that the questions, themselves, suggest the kind of Nazi-era and traditional anti-Jewish racism that leads to violence toward us.

The whole notion that "Zionists" (i.e., Jews) have an outsized and corrupting influence within their countries of residence is the central theme of the kind anti-Jewish racism that resulted in my family being lined up and shot in ditches in the Ukraine.  It was obviously one of the driving themes of Nazi Germany and it is one of the driving themes of contemporary Imperial Islam and western progressive anti-Zionism.

As for U.S. foreign policy, the biggest mistake (if mistake, it was) that the Obama administration made was in promoting the rise of radical Islam under the delusion that radical Islam has moderate segments, like the Muslim Brotherhood, that can be messaged and influenced toward western interests, if not values.

The Obama administration is the first American administration to seriously attempt any such project and it has done so without in any way alerting the American public of its actual policies or intentions.  Jimmy Carter was weak in his response to the theocratic Iranian Revolution of 1979, but I am not so familiar with the foreign policy of that administration that I would ever claim that it positively aided and abetted the rise of political Islam within the Middle East.  The same cannot be said of the Obama administration.  The key is Obama's famous (or infamous) Cairo speech in which he, in effect, promised the Muslim Brotherhood, and political Islam, more generally, a new American foreign policy more in keeping with their interests.  Thus, of course, Mubarak had to go and Obama came before the world community at the United Nations and bragged about the U.S. - Islamist alliance under the transparent guise of "Arab Spring" and faux-democracy.

He did not, obviously, put it in such terms.  He merely suggested that the United States supported the Arab revolutions and (lo and behold) the Arab revolutions just happened to be Islamist in nature.

The Obama administration, thus, promoted the rise of political Islam under the veil of "democracy."

The western left, including the Obama administration, hailed the "Arab Spring" as a great democratic movement, but that was never the case and now we are seeing the fruits of this delusion as almost the entire Middle East goes down in flames, with Arabs killing Arabs in the tens of thousands, if not the hundreds of thousands, and as Islamists fight Islamists in the Syrian streets.

One of the obvious fundamental tensions within the Middle East is between Shia and Sunni and between Cairo and Riyadh versus Teheran.  It is not only Israel and the United States that does not wish to see Iran gain nuclear weaponry, but neither does Egypt or Saudi Arabia.  It should be U.S. foreign policy to prevent any such possibility, but that is unlikely under this weak American administration.  Thus there is a very distinct possibility that Israel will do the dirty work of the west and of the Sunnis by taking out the Iranian nuclear project, if it is able.

When Israel does so (if it does so) the Jews of the Middle East will be met by a storm of hatred by those within the very same countries that have benefited most.

And, with that, I conclude my answers to these questions.


  1. The unabashed, shameless bigotry inherent in such 'questions' is really incredible. These are the kind of thoughts that until recently would only be expressed in non-English languages. Are they becoming bolder in their bigotry, do you think, or is it that such antisemitic thoughts and expressions are increasingly being successfully mainstreamed by places like Daily Kos and their ilk?

    1. I am telling ya, man, I am just so happy to be back in the Bay Area.

      Southern Florida is just too damn hot and too damn humid.

      Good God!

      But you should see the sail fish that I caught!

      7 feet, my man. 7 foot long.

      And we released it alive and healthy.

      I'll post a picture soon.

      But, yes, they are becoming bolder in their bigotry and hatred because of the rise of anti-Zionism and because so many (not all) "progressive Zionists" agree that the real problem is that some Jews live where Barack Obama and dictator Abbas insist that they should not be allowed to live.

      The whole situation is entirely messed up, as we have racist Jewish progressive-left "anti-racists" who are among the most racist people on the planet.

      They honestly believe that they have the right to tell Jewish people that we have no right to live in Judea.

      The very first thing that we need to do - or so it seems to me - is fight back against the type of Jewish anti-Semitism that blames Arab genocidal bigotry against Jews upon the kinds of Jews that Obama does not like.

      The first thing that we need to do is inform Jewish dhimmis, like Segall and fizziks, that the Day of the Dhimmi is Done.

      We have to stand strong for the Jewish people, because the progressive-left, including the Jewish left, tends to think that we deserve whatever beating we get.

    2. You'd better post that picture soon, bro! I really need to start fishing. I can't die a Real Pennsylvanian without catching at least a dozen brook trout, and grilling them with tons of garlic and lemon, after all.

      I probably won't ever drive a deer home in a pickup truck blaring Lynryd Skynyrd tunes while tossing Bud cans out the window, but at least I'll do the PA fish thing. ;)

      As for the rest, I think we'd be much better off focusing on our real enemies, who I view as those in Western liberal democracies who refuse to abide by our value system and who have no tolerance for others. With all due respect, the ones chopping people's heads off and the ones bombing marathons and buses these days are the ones we'd be better off focusing on.

    3. Mike,

      "The first thing that we need to do is inform Jewish dhimmis, like Segall and fizziks, that the Day of the Dhimmi is Done."

      Hmmm... you know, Mike, despite the lot of differences I have with the folks at The Progressive Zionist and although I'm aware of the fact they see me especially as an example of what's wrong in Israel, I wouldn't be so hard on them. On a recent exchange with the troll GeneralChoomin on their blog, a lot of responses they gave were pretty much what I'd have given.

      I think the biggest mistake on the part of Volleyboy (hi there, Volleyboy!) and the rest of them is in their thinking that GeneralChoomin's ideas are still a fringe within the Progressive camp. I wish they'd realize that instead of sniping at your blog. I mean, when considering their "Progressive Zionist" label, I'm quite OK with that—if you don't think Zionism is a settler-colonial enterprise, if you think the Jews are here by right, and you actively support that right of the Jews', then you're a Zionist. But their fellow Progressives... for them the label "Zionist" has become an epithet, and the flag of Israel they put on their blog header, a stigma.

      Zionists they are, but I'm not sure about the Progressive bit. They're more like the pre-1960s Old Left of FDR and HST (which I have deep respect for despite being a fiscal conservative). But it's not my view of them they should care about, it's the fact that the Progressive-Left camp's tolerance for Zionists of any kind is already very low, and decreasing by the day.

    4. All of this -

      "I think the biggest mistake on the part of Volleyboy (hi there, Volleyboy!) and the rest of them is in their thinking that GeneralChoomin's ideas are still a fringe within the Progressive camp. I wish they'd realize that instead of sniping at your blog. I mean, when considering their "Progressive Zionist" label, I'm quite OK with that—if you don't think Zionism is a settler-colonial enterprise, if you think the Jews are here by right, and you actively support that right of the Jews', then you're a Zionist. But their fellow Progressives... for them the label "Zionist" has become an epithet, and the flag of Israel they put on their blog header, a stigma."


      As for the rest, I would note that, in my opinion, an additional flaw is a reluctance to publicly admit any mistakes or errors (forced or unforced) on the part of President Obama and the Democrats (I say this as a two-time Obama voter, and a registered Democrat, myself).

      Though that is surely related to the unfortunate state of partisan warfare politics in the US today, which is taken to be a zero-sum game by all too many on both sides.

      Perhaps it's always been, in a way, but it just feels so much uglier today than it has at any point in my life so far. And I 'came of age' during the Clinton years, for the record.

      Classy response, Zion, especially considering some of the things said about you there.

    5. Hi there Zion!

      Thanks for a measured comment. I am going to agree with you here when you talk about FDR (a hero of mine) and HST (who I respect but would not rank up there with Bill C., or Barak O.)

      You are right that I am critical of you, because I am critical of the ideas that support Otzma (Ben-Ari and Eldad, I believe) and HaBayit HaYehudi. Please understand that there was a point when I actually would have been your ideological ally though and then I lived in Israel and everything changed.

      In the last election, I would have probably voted with either HaTanuah OR Avodah (and now that Tzipi bailed on everything she stood for it would be Avodah).

      On Israel (and I know you have read my stuff), I am a firm believer in the Olmert Plan - though I will say that if it were offered in full one time with the map (because Ehud never did give the map to Abbas), and the Palestinians rejected it, then I think my views on this, and only this would be more in line with Netanyahu, Meriador, and Lapid.

      Now this said, I actually knew Geula Cohen and the roots of Tehiya. I got to know her doing a project on the early settlement movement in contrast to Shinui... (Look what came out of all that). Because of that I got to see first hand the revival of the terms Judea v' Shomron. This was a direct and explicit attempt to change framework. Cohen explained that quite clearly.

      As for the modern progressive movement - yes, there are issues. Certainly distressing ones both here and in Ha'aretz (the nation not the newspaper). But there are real issues on the right as well (witness Hungary and Greece). I believe that they and the those that would enable them under the cover of "fighting Islam" enable the worst in us.

      We do recognize this about the "Progressive Left" it's just that we see the Progressive Left being infiltrated by the Libertarian Right and their influence.

      You know what's interesting I see - is that this is Ben-Gurion vs. Jabotinsky all over again for the "Soul" of the Zionist Movement. Would you agree with that?

    6. I am very much looking forward to Zion's response, but if I may butt in on one point for just a second -

      "We do recognize this about the "Progressive Left" it's just that we see the Progressive Left being infiltrated by the Libertarian Right and their influence."

      Are the LaRouche and Paul types really 'infiltrating' where they're not wanted, or are they simply converging on friendly ground?

      I see it as the latter, myself, volley. I'm curious as to why you apparently see it the other way?

    7. *converging on friendly ground into open arms.

    8. I think they are "infiltrating" as they are using different terminology and "sucking in" (for a lack of a better term) low information activists with their language. They are using tactics from the '30's that used populist rhetoric mixed with anti-Semitic memes. It's just that they have gotten better at it.

      I read the DKos diaries now, and most of the commentary is just stunningly ignorant - but the argument is being taken over by those with an agenda.

      Just my take on it.

    9. But then how do you explain the Big Als and the Glenn Greenwalds? These people may have 'libertarian' tendencies (then again, in certain ways so do I), but they clearly identify as progressives and they're certainly not Republicans.

      These are leftists susceptible to antisemitic arguments and sentiments, and they're increasingly becoming mainstream as far as I can tell. People like Greenwald in being handed the keys to writing at The Guardian, and people like Big Al in his being considered a valued community member at a place like Daily Kos, while you and I were both forced out of there mainly for standing up to those types.

      Yes, of course they're ignorant fools. But they're being taken seriously.

    10. Jay,

      Because I'm a regular reader of hardcore anti-Zionist websites like Mondofront, my standards as to what constitutes insulting language are very high. The worst I've ever been called at PZ doesn't hold a candle to the stuff I read in Mound o' Scheiss (which isn't even about me).


      Regarding Barack O., a lot on the Right think he's a Muslim but I'm one who doesn't—I think he's a Marxist Leftist of the 1960s kind, which I believe also predisposes him to hold to the view of Zionism as a relic of European colonialism. Even so, he's not the sole decision-maker behind American foreign policy, so I tend to focus on him less than my fellow right-wingers do.

      Otzmah L'Yisrael and HaBayit HaYehudi are not the same, although they're both right-wing hawkish parties. The former is further to the right, while the latter is simply the old Religious-Nationalist Party (Mafdal) under a different name—more to the right than Likkud, but not as much as Otzmah L'Yisrael.

      The disbelief in the prospects of a negotiated peace have permeated Israeli Jewish society, and the fact that many voted for Yesh Atid (Lapid), Labor (Yechimovitch) and HaTnuah (Livni) in the past elections is not contrary to that observation. As I have mentioned on this blog quite a few times, in Israel the capitalist/socialist split and the hawk/dove split are orthogonal—not package deals as they tend to be in America. The votes for Lapid, Yechimovitch and Livni reflect a society mistrusting Bibi's policies of unbridled capitalism, not dovish inclinations.

      In my recent posts I have said that a true two-state solution with a mutual exchange of populations a la Greece-Turkey in 1923 (Jews of Judea and Samaria and Arabs of pre-1967 Israel exchanged) would theoretically be acceptable to a majority of Israeli Jews (it was in the 1990s). The reason why such a solution has fallen out of favor in the past decade and some is that the Israeli Jews no longer believe the Arabs would be satisfied with the post-1967 territories for their new state; we think they want everything we have. In such circumstances, very many Israeli Jews fear that giving away Judea and Samaria would mean a rain of Kassam rockets on Tel-Aviv just as surely as the August 2005 evacuation of Gaza did for the neighboring pre-1967 Israeli Jewish towns.

      In short, the other side has a lot of broken trust to mend; above all it must be kept in mind that binationalism and things that lead to binationalism like the RoR are totally outside the consensus for Israeli Jews, now as always. Politically incorrect though it probably is, the majority of Israeli Jews don't want Israel to become a "state of all its citizens"; chalk it up to nearly 2000 years of Diaspora life, but that's the way it is. For my part, I believe every nation has the right to have its state exclusively to itself; except for anomalies like the Melting-Pot U.S.A., most nation-states in the world don't take well to having more than one nation in them. It's not xenophobia that I'm calling for, it's the minimization of the risk of civil strife and possibly genocide (like in Rwanda).

      One interesting tidbit about Ben Gurion vs. Jabotinsky is how the parameters have shifted over the years in their debate: Ben Gurion and Jabotinsky were agreed on Judea and Samaria and Gaza being rightfully Israel's, while it was about Transjordan (the East Bank, IOW) that they were divided. Anyhow, today I'd say most Israeli Jews aren't expansionists for the sake of it; like I said above, they're no longer sanguine about land-for-peace, so they see no point in giving up the post-1967 territories, especially not when that could bring the Kassam rockets closer home.

      Thanks for the gracious post. I've got to hit the hay now, so I'll respond to follow-ups tomorrow (in Israel's timezone).

    11. I really would like for us to quiet things down, despite my numerous personal failings on that count. ;)

      I keep trying to be a better person, though!

      We shouldn't be judging civility based upon what is said at Mondoweiss, or even Fox News or MSNBC. That's my take.

      Personally, as I've said, I'd like to see more dialogue like this here. Though I disagree greatly with much of what, say, volleyboy, for instance, says, I don't see him as an 'enemy.' And I hope the feeling is mutual.

      Our real enemies are those who saw off heads for Allah, those who bomb buses and marathons, and those who excuse or apologize for same.

      I also oppose and see danger in some of the social policies pushed for by too many Republicans these days, particularly those who play homophobic games which would make the mullahs proud, but in the end they're not the ones cutting people's heads off these days.

      There are degrees to consider here, and I'd like to think those of us from both sides of the Western political spectrum, left to right and everyone in between, can come together in common cause to defend at least the base level of a tolerant, liberal society we now have, and hopefully to expand upon same.

      But not toward those who show no tolerance for others. That's where to draw the line.

      If I'm making any sense here...

    12. Jay,

      Besides the scary allegiance to almost anything Obama comes the correlative knack to call those who present different arguments as somehow mentally deficient, an Obama inspired tactic, or a Republican bigot.

      Not to mention that the tolerance for expression by others leaves plenty to be desired.

    13. This comment has been removed by the author.

    14. Agreed, School. I didn't want to bring it up myself, but this is certainly another problem -

      "Besides the scary allegiance to almost anything Obama comes the correlative knack to call those who present different arguments as somehow mentally deficient, an Obama inspired tactic, or a Republican bigot."

      I've never fully understood why you, in particular, are treated in such a way there. And I guess I never will.

      "Not to mention that the tolerance for expression by others leaves plenty to be desired."

      This too, definitely. And maybe I'm a hopeless, naive dreamer, but I'd like to think that can change. One person there in particular is the real problem, though, and it isn't anyone who's ever commented here. He isn't brave enough.

      So I dunno.

      I'm sure we all read the threads (involving volley's old 'acquaintance' General Choomin) over there, which Zion noted above... and what I found most interesting is that no matter what, in the end, people like him still consider all of us the same. Despite the considerable differences we have amongst each other.

      We all look alike to him, in other words.

      Now doesn't that sound quite familiar?

      I would still like to think there's at least some common ground there, though...

    15. Actually, I did not read them, but have taken a glance.

      He seems to garner more tolerance than others have.

      I have plenty of common ground, even with the intolerance, which is inexcusable.

    16. Zion,

      Again, thanks for your gracious post as well.

      One thing I will say is that while I pretty much disagree with most of what you believe in as far as the tactical aspects of this conflict is concerned, I do appreciate the honesty in your statements of belief. At least with you I know exactly who I am dealing with from a political point of view. Believe me, I wish everyone could be there. On both sides, I might add.

      Anyway, on to the subject of your response - I spend a lot of time with Israelis, probably more than is healthy for me ;-) and we talk about this stuff sometimes. Not a lot but it reminds of the folks I knew when I lived there. I think your overall perception of Israeli political culture has a lot of truth to it.

      So yes, I know that Otzma and Bayit Yehudi are different but there are ties, as you yourself noted during the election that Bennett was your default. I mean the Feiglin, Danon wing are a challenge to Bennett so there is that dynamic as well. BTW, did Likud really go around telling people that if they voted for Bennett that they "would remember" who voted where? That was reported during the election.

      Anyway, I think also that the while Lapid and Shelly did not run dovish campaigns (they barely touched the subject), Livni ran a campaign that did focus on Foreign Policy issues (and I consider the Occupation to be one of those, though there are a ton of domestic ramifications to it). I would say that outside of Meretz though, there is not much "dovishness" either way.

      I get your take on the. "citizens" issue. I disagree with it, but, I understand it. I appreciate you clarifying your feelings. Security is a concern, and I certainly am very much against a bi-national state. It is the one thing I agree with PM Netanyahu regarding, and that is that I do believe for there to be true peace, that Israel must be recognized as the National Homeland and State of the Jewish people. Until that time, there will be no real peace based on mutual respect which I think is necessary for a long lasting peace.

      That said, I believe that there is such a thing as the Palestinian People (I don't subscribe to the same terminology on this that you do) and I believe they have legitimate national aspirations as well. SO.. I say, let them have something. It doesn't need to be militarized and at this point they need to understand that the '67 borders simply will never happen again - but I understand their need and given our (Jews) experience, I think it is recognizable.

      Just my take.

      Oh and as for Ben-Gurion and Jabotinsky. They may have shared that at one point, they strongly differed in the respective ends of their lives. Ben-Gurion, (I think you can tell, I am a fan of his - as with Rabin, Eshkol, Eban, the old time guys, though once I met Shimon Peres and while I like his politics the man himself gave me "the willies" on a personal level) would have and wanted to compromise just to get peace. He understood that this was the key to long time national survival.

      It's not about "living on ones knees" or "going down fighting"... It is about making sure that Israel survives - first and foremost. Nothing much else matters in this. THAT is the important thing.

      In Krav Maga, we talk about winning the fight, but more than anything making sure that we never have to have that fight again (and really it is best not to have the fight at all if you can avoid it). I think Ben-Gurion had that philosophy. Everything I read about him talks about how he really wanted Israel to be strong but secure and that this above all was his philosophy. SO... while they may have had similar ideals, DBG, I believe had a much more moderate outlook and was willing to consider what it would take to achieve the survival of Israel.

      SO.. Boker Tov (when you read this) - and again thanks for the response,

    17. Jay,

      Like I once said on CiFWatch, in order for me to consider someone an enemy, they have to work hard at it: Mere disagreement with some of my ideas won't cut it, they have to oppose Zionism as a whole. I think the belief in land-for-peace deals right now in 2013 is an incorrect one, in view of what we've gone through, but it's not malicious in and of itself; malicious are those who wish the Jews to be deprived of their state or think the Jews are puppetmasters pushing the world to the brink (I said "or" but actually there's quite an overlap between the two): the likes of GeneralChoomin, Phillip Weiss, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, David Duke and Jeremiah Wright.


      I'm a great believer in laying out one's beliefs and biases before the debate begins. It saves a lot of misunderstandings.

      No, that wasn't Likkud who said it, it was the Ultra-Orthodox party Shas. Still, it's easy to see how it could be believed: There's an ongoing vendetta between Bibi and Bennett. Bibi thinks Bennett's stolen his votes as well as thunder, and Bennett's only too glad to plead guilty while accusing Bibi of bringing it upon himself by his compromises with the Israeli Left. A classic case of dirty politics.

      Yechimovitch won big (relatively speaking) because she avoided foreign policy issues. She was smart, she knew she'd better focus on the economy if she wanted the votes. Livni was less smart, so she gained fewer votes than she would have. The big winner, of course, was Lapid, who capitalized (no pun intended) on the public's aversion to privatization to the maximum.

      I agree the military occupation of the post-1967 territories has negative effects on the economy of Israel. I also think abandoning those territories would have just as negative, if not more so, effects on the economy (like the effect of rising prices for housing when so many people have to be resettled in pre-1967 Israel). That's one reason why I believe the only true and workable two-state solution is one that involves full reciprocation, i.e. a population exchange between the Jews of Judea and Samaria and the Arabs of pre-1967 Israel.


    18. (contd.)

      I'm not in principle averse to the recent emergence of nations, for example in the context of decolonization in Africa. I think the straight lines drawn by the European powers in Africa cutting across nations did great damage, but if the various African tribes manage to become real nations on the basis of those borders, then that's swell. The difference between those nations and the Arab "Palestinian" one is that the latter was conceived in bad faith. It was and still is the linchpin of the delegitimization of the Jewish nationalism (a.k.a. Zionism) as a white European settler-colonial project, which is a malicious Big Lie.

      If the Arab-"Palestinian" narrative didn't involve the denial of the Jews' being indigenous to Palestine, I could compromise with it. If the world came to regard "Israel vs. Palestine" as a local version of Hutus vs. Tutsis, meaning equal claimants to the land, there'd be something to talk about. But when people contrast between "indigenous Palestinians" and "Israeli settlers," it's clear Zionism is being put in the dock, waiting for a verdict on its "injustices." I can't compromise with that—I can't play nice when the other side doesn't give my side even the basic legitimacy of being an equal claimant, let alone our status as the one nation that's maintained a real, objective cultural connection to Palestine throughout 2000 years in the Diaspora.

      That ties in to compromise in general: I don't want war any more than you do, but I think compromises with those who hold to a zero-sum worldview can do nothing but bring war. I don't hold to a zero-sum worldview—not of my own accord, at any rate. But the Arab side hasn't shown any sign of relenting on the RoR, which is a non-starter, and they're perfectly ready to launch an intifada for that cause. Compromise with zero-summers only emboldens them to further aggression. My being a hardliner isn't for the sake of it, but a tactical stand that I must maintain until the other side gets off their high horse. I don't know when or even whether that will happen, but until then, I have to stick to my position so as to balance the scales.

      We could say we both care about Israel's survival, but we have differing ideas as to what the best course is to ensure it.


    19. Zion -

      Once again - Thanks... I agree with you wholeheartedly on this:

      I'm a great believer in laying out one's beliefs and biases before the debate begins. It saves a lot of misunderstandings

      and this:

      We could say we both care about Israel's survival, but we have differing ideas as to what the best course is to ensure it.

      Ok, one quibble... I checked on the Likud / Betainu story about the settlements and here is what I saw, from the Times of Israel - http://www.timesofisrael.com/likud-beytenu-to-play-hardball-with-settlers-if-they-dont-vote-for-the-party-report-says/

      Support for Naftali Bennett’s ascendant right-wing Jewish Home party comes largely at the expense of the Likud-Yisrael Beytenu list and its leader, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — and nowhere is this more pronounced than among the largely Orthodox settler population. Reportedly, the trend has prompted Likud to “play rough” and convey the message that if these Israelis fail to vote for Likud-Beytenu in January 22′s election, the consequences for the entire settler movement could be grave....

      ...But now, the sources said, “there’s pressure on the settlers. The message is that, this time round, you have to be with us. Otherwise, there will be repercussions for the future of the settlement movement.”...


      Another Likud member was quoted as saying that, after the elections, the party would compare the number of votes it received in various settlements to the number of Likud members in the same locations.

      So it does look like it Likud/Betainu - but hey if Shas threatened that is just another aspect.

      Thank you for explaining the roots of your philosophy also, it helps explain some things I am seeing. I can't agree with it but, at least I understand it. I don't really disagree with what you say about Arab extremism but I don't believe we need to become like them to win this fight, in fact I think that is a losing proposition.

      That said, thanks for your honesty and forthrightness... it really does help.


    20. FWIW, I liked this thread, and wish we could have more like these.

    21. Hey Karmafish! Been awhile. When I was younger I thought I told you to not let what you are against define you. I guess saying it that one time several years ago didn't work. :(

      "ziontruth" which is sorta contradictory handle. You say my opinion is "finge" but then you blurt out this

      "Politically incorrect though it probably is, the majority of Israeli Jews don't want Israel to become a "state of all its citizens"; chalk it up to nearly 2000 years of Diaspora life, but that's the way it is. For my part, I believe every nation has the right to have its state exclusively to itself; except for anomalies like the Melting-Pot U.S.A., most nation-states in the world don't take well to having more than one nation in them. It's not xenophobia that I'm calling for, it's the minimization of the risk of civil strife and possibly genocide (like in Rwanda).

      Which is the fringest most terrible post I have read. It also shows how you would like it done to everyone else except you in the good old "melting pot" usa. You are literally saying that every nation on earth except the "special one" should be able to expel it's minorities from the country.

      Then you say it's not what xenophobia you are advocating. But wasn't the example of what it would prevent, genocide, an example of the methods that would need to be used to expel entire nations from lands they have lived on for hundreds of years? Sounds like xenonphobia is a big part in your perfect world as a tool to implement ethnic cleansing and as a reason to do so.

      "ziontruth" you are such a fool. With your comments about expelling minorities you are justifying pretty much any action in the past, present, and future that has caused the deaths, persecution, and expulsion of jews during those 2000 years of dispora and many years to come.

      Oh yeah, if you have to start out with "this might sound politically incorrect" it automatterically means you are gonna say something terrible and most likely racist, sexist, or homophobic tea party comment. Just a heads up.

      Jayinphiladephia... i wish you had staid in portland... *sigh*.. You still haven't backed up anything you said against me ever because, I must assume, each day you go under the EL and buy a few roxs for a pick up.

      For your special Info JAY. I'm a bit older then you think. I have posted (I think.. musta been 5-6 years ago) on karmas blog. Before volleyboy1 even started his confusion theology of "progressive zionism" (whatever that means).

      Anyways you say I think of "progressive zionists" and regular "zionists" are the same? You are partly right. But at least one is more upfront how hateful they are and the other a phoney hater named Alan Dershowitz

      Alan Dershowitz debates Mier Khane

      This is the difference between Israel-thrives (unless they changed since last I read) and progressivezionist

    22. Thanks, Choomin. Portland didn't agree with me, and I didn't agree with it, so I came back home to Philadelphia. Your concern is truly touching, though.

      I wish you had stayed (that's how you spell that word, by the way) at David Duke's site, myself, but here you are.

      Such is life, eh?

      Save your sighs. I couldn't be happier to be back home.

      You are demonstrably a bigot, and all the 'proof' I need is right there in the link.

      There's more, but you aren't worth the time. Everybody here knows exactly who and what you are.

      It's spelled 'El,' btw. It isn't an acronym, Einstein. It's just short for elevated subway. The Market-Frankford Line. I live right under it, will be buying my first (and last!) home here soon, and will never live anywhere other than Kensington again.

      We're also one of the most ethnically, racially and religiously diverse neighborhoods in the world, Mr. Progressive Internet Superhero. But please, do feel free to keep dumping on neighborhoods like mine, and further exposing your own bigotry.

      And crack is soooo 80s. It's heroin and wet that are the problem on The Ave days, for the record. If you're gonna pretend to be hip to such things, please at least put away NWA's first album and do a simple web search.

    23. Btw, Choomin, there's a place where people joke about North Philadelphia residents, like myself, all being on crack.

      It's called Stormfront.

      Give it a whirl there, racist. You'll surely feel much more at home there.

      You can even hate Jews openly, too. ;)

    24. WOw thanks for demonstrating that... Throw in some david duke. A splash of a thing you copied from a previous post. That's enough evidence to get OJ out of jail again.

      LOL you seriously need to put down that crack pipe down. I know it's kensington crack and i've heard it packs a punch which can knock some of your teeth out. But it isn't worth it. Seek help yo.

      I mean you are already typing angry gibberish about the elevated train and how great kensington is. Eventually you might end up having to sell your collection of "I'm a really white guy!" peacoats at the pawn shop to support your habit.

    25. General Choomin File Video found.

      Just stick a pointy white hood on him, and call it good...

    26. "A splash of a thing you copied from a previous post."

      Btw, 9:26 is earlier than 9:34, simpleton.

      I copied and pasted below. Time stamps, dude.

      The quip above was actually the original.

      You're so stupid you can't even insult me in the proper place.

    27. Time?!? TIME?!? Time is relative einstein! Anyway nice chatting with you. Youre great at diverting attention to things like what I pointed out in my first post here. Which was ziotruth literally justify ethnic cleansing or genocide by the majority onto a minority in an argument based on expelling Palestinians. Which is the same sort of argument that can be used to justify the treatment of jews in every expulsion, forced conversion, torture, massacre, pogrom, inprisonment, and extermination because he thinks a country has a right to only be a nation of only the majority of it's citizens and the other be damned.

      It's sad that a forum full of jews didn't call that one out. I guess zionism has a blinding effect on perspective and empathy.

    28. Wait, the guy who defends the vile, ethnic cleansing advocate Helen Thomas, is screeching in outrage when someone else dares propose such a thing?

      You've proven Zion's entire point.

      For the record, I don't agree with Zion on that (though I tend to defer to him on such matters, since he's an Israeli and I'm not).

      You, on the other hand, are on record supporting ethnic cleansing.

      With respect to the late Tony Snow, thank you for the Hezbollah view, Choomin.

      Your refusal to capitalize Jews is duly noted. The rest of your bullshit is duly ignored, considering your proven history as a disgusting bigot.

      One who was even banned for his antisemitism, from Daily Kos, of all places!

      Probably a few dozen times, but at least twice that you'll admit to. You and Dont Call It. You're also certainly Romo2Austin, and likely many others. But regardless.

      You bigotry truly knows no bounds, does it?

    29. Expulsion, forced conversion, torture, massacre, pogrom, imprisonment, and extermination occur every day, especially under the regimes you seem to support.

      Yet the only thing you seem able to "call out" concerns Jews. It is sad that you do not have courage and must hide your hatred behind anti-Zionism.

      That you are unable to understand the double standard you practice or discern the differences involved here makes you a hypocrite and a fool.

    30. He had two opportunities to capitalize the word Jews, and he whiffed on both. He also couldn't bring himself to capitalize Zionism, or even Einstein.

      Yet he was able to capitalize Palestinian.

      So he is clearly not averse to proper nouns.

      He's just a bigot.

      Choomin's bigotry on public display yet again, numerous times in just one comment.

    31. I'm sure he considers his bigotry justified, though. Just like his buddy Helen Thomas...

    32. Look who's come here to take a dump! And I thought, after his dramatic departure from PZ to great fanfare, Choomin would post there under a different handle. But there are other ways around his boredom, I see...

      "It also shows how you would like it done to everyone else except you in the good old 'melting pot' usa."

      I'm an Israeli, bud. You're big on just assuming things, y'know.

      "You are literally saying that every nation on earth except the 'special one' should be able to expel it's minorities from the country."

      I believe the role of the nation-state is to be the home of its nation, where members of the nation are secure in their protective space. The U.S.A. is indeed anomalous because the definition of the American nation came after the territory, not before as with most nations. In the normal case, a nation is no more obliged to take members of other nations inside it than a family is to make its home a communal shelter like in that scene in Doctor Zhivago.

      It's your position that's indefensible, not mine. You're calling for the insecurity and civil strife that would result from your dangerous tampering with nation-states, and you think you're sprouting angel winds while people suffer the consequences of your Marxist fantasies.

      "...you are justifying pretty much any action in the past, present, and future that has caused the deaths, persecution, and expulsion of jews during those 2000 years of dispora and many years to come."

      Please don't pretend to stand for Jews, you who support their bitterest enemies today. As for the Jews living in the Diaspora, there are a small number of nations like the Druzes and the Jews who have a doctrine of loyalty to the host state (for all the good it did the Jews conspiratorially accused) who are exceptions to the rule that a nation can't take members of another nation within it peacefully. But that's what they are, exceptions. Now that the Jewish nation have a state—which you are so dead-set on undoing—the whole point is moot.

      "Which was ziotruth literally justify ethnic cleansing or genocide..."

      Your reading comprehension is abysmal. I've never justified genocide in my life, and as for ethnic cleansing, those who live in a house of glass shouldn't be throwing stones. If it's merely the Jews of Judea and Samaria or all of them like Helen Thomas screeched for, the Far Left is the crowned champion of calling for the ethnic cleansing of Jews.

      "...an argument based on expelling Palestinians."

      Arabs, not Palestinians. The Jews are the only true Palestinians. The Arabs in Palestine are settler-colonists engaged in a racist stealing of land from the indigenous Palestinians—the Jews. Remind me what you have always said should be done with such settlers? Oh, right: They all need to evacuate the lands they're stealing, which is just a sophisticated way of calling for (drum roll, please) ethnic cleansing.

  2. Yes... Tell us that the "Day of the Dhimmi" is done because we didn't know that.

    Thank you, thank you, thank you.

  3. Played head on and out of the ground for a six as they would say around here Mike.


    1. Cricket terminology rocks so hard it's not even fair. I think I could live to 90 and still not fully understand even 60% of it, though. Heh.

    2. Wow.. What a stroke. What a hit. Amazing.

      Come on Jay. If you can work out the US electoral system anything else is a piece of cake!

    3. Heh!

      Good point.

      I was born into the US electoral system, though. So there's that... ;)

  4. I don't know who Big Al is but I do know who Glenn Greenwald is and it's important to store away the odd and toxic reality of that one.

    GG does not claim to be 'left or right liberal or progressive' but instead he hides behind the cover of 'radical absolutist libertarian' - which is a nice way of saying anarcho-fascist. And I am not exaggerating here. When he was a lawyer the only cases he would take is defending Nazis. He defended mass murdering antisemite Nazi Matt Hale when his only claim to fame was being denied entry into the Illinois Bar on the grounds he is a Nazi. GG won that case. He, early in his 'writing' career worked with and for Pat Buchanan. And in his well documented history at Salon.com, apart from his creepy stalking and habit of commenting on his own columns in the comments section of his columns while personally attacking anyone who disagreed with them, he was as far as I know the only Salon columnist who had unilateral authority to delete any comment and ban any poster for any reason. But his stellar moment was when he scribbling about god knows what and me mentioned in passing that one of the great disappointments of his life was that he was not old enough to help and to march with the Nazis in Skokie Il in that famous case in the 1970's when the Nazis sued to hold a rally in the streets of the town that was home to more Holocaust survivors than any other in America.

    The boilerplate hate America, defend mass murdering terrorists, worship Osama nuke the Jews checkbox horsesh^t he spouts is but the tip of the iceberg of this true believer. Leftists embrace him because be blathers the Howard Zinn inspired nonsense but behind that is something far more insidious. He's for all practical intents a neo Nazi who doesn't even bother to hide it. And while shills like John "Juan" Cole reflexively pop up to defend fascists in Iran and most recently Turkey, they do it out of a profound dullness and an incipient blind stupidity most suited to playing the sexual Svengali to all the adoring coed and Patty Hearst wannabes, Greenwald is a straight up violent anarchist who wants to see the world die in a holocaust with little regard to who dies.

    1. Great point. But he's still not a member of the Libertarian Right 'infiltrating' the Progressive Left.

      I'll trade you a Greenwald for a Juan Cole or a Ben White, then.

      Or hell, even an Ali Abunimah, an As'ad AbuKhalil or a David Harris-Gershon.

    2. Larouche and Paul infiltrating the Left is a good laugh.

      Butler and Walker have far more influence and ability to convince many of those pre-disposed to their arguments, by virtue of their education and penchant for social activism based on relativism.

    3. Oldschool,

      "Larouche and Paul infiltrating the Left is a good laugh."

      I wouldn't call it a laugh, it's more of an optical illusion. If it seems that too many Leftists today sound like the scum of the Far Right, it's because politics is a circle where the Left and the Right meet at their extremes. You have only to consider the cross-pollination between Mondoweiss (Far Left) and Stormfront (Far Right), for example, to see that.

    4. That is what I meant by "a good laugh," in case it was not clear. Why some Leftists have to find someone to blame for the virulence among them is a good question, however.

    5. "Why some Leftists have to find someone to blame for the virulence among them is a good question, however."

      Zero-sum partisan warfare, as far as I can tell.

      I engaged in it myself for quite a while during the Bush years, much to my regret looking back, so I know firsthand it's a hard habit to drop. Though I'm still the same person I always was, and I don't renounce any of my political stances over the years, I do regret engaging in demonization and contributing to that toxic environment at one time

      In a way, it's still kinda sorta understandable to me, considering the extreme, package-deal, political polarization that defines our two party system in the US today. What I would like is for us to work towards its end, though.

      Israel Thrives is my favorite blog on this topic because I see the beginnings of this at work here now. Though we're far from perfect, and we still have a ways to go, I love that we have a place here where everyone from Stuart to Volley to me to you to Zion to Trudy and everyone else in between can discuss matters at a volume somewhat below fight-to-the-death-cage-match, which is the form such discussions all too often take elsewhere.

    6. Steve Rifkin why did you sign up for stratfor? Which is a crummy service that spies on people imo. Also, why do you go as "empress trudy" on here? It seems like you don't want to mix your advocacy here with your other, much more real, internet identity.. Or maybe I'm wrong I don't know.

    7. What you are, Choomin, is a fanatical antisemite. And a clown. And a troll.

      You are demonstrably a bigot, and also apparently lost.

      Stormfront is somewhere over there, dude --->>>.

      People like you are the enemy.

      You seek to deny the Jewish people, alone amongst all people of the world, the right to self-determination. You hold the Jewish nation, alone amongst all nations in the world, to a sickening double standard.

      You are also a stalker, following volleyboy to threads where he posts on anywhere, even beyond his own site.

      Seek help, Choomin. You so obviously need it.

    8. If I am a "demonstrably a bigot" then copy the appropriate parts and say which ones are bigoted. If you want to talk about people who go to stormfront, then you should ask volleyboy1 since he seems to have the pulse on that site.

      If I am the enemy then you have already lost.

      You say that I seek to deny anyone self-determination? That is another lie you say yourself. I'm all for self-determination as long as it doesn't infringe on the human rights of others. Ethnic cleansing and a forms of control on the displaced people through Apartheid and arbitrary arrests, evictions, and torture is not the sort self determination I can support. Maybe you can since you lack morals.

      You say I hold Israel to a double standard. That's another deflection and lie. It is you who hold it to a double standard. In which you hold it to no fault but still can point to how other nations have failed including your own.

      about volleyboy. I already stated I wouldn't post on his worthless blog. Where he channel's dershowitz in cherry picking stupid crap and making the worst political calculations and predictions in the history of internet.

      Anyways, you say I need help. You need to stop smoking roxs in oldtown because being a pretensions cracked up Ahole won't stop you from getting arrested.

    9. All of that link demonstrates your bigotry, Choomin.

      You're also doing a great job further proving your bigotry in your comments here, clown.

      Btw, there is a place where people 'joke' about inner city residents like myself all being on crack.

      It's called Stormfront. Give it a whirl, racist. You'll also find you can openly hate Jews there, too!

      You'd love it at that place, I'm sure.

      It's a veritable Choomin Wonderland!

      You can continue to joke about people in our inner cities all being drug addicts, and you can spew your Nazi crap there, too!

      It's all welcome over there, Choomin. Seriously, go home to your people. They're waiting. Please don't let us keep you from them.

    10. Btw, Choomin, I've always been curious - when folks like you do your wash, how do youze keep the tips of your hoods so pointy and white?

      And how do youze deal with ring-around-the-eye-holes?

      I mean, while you're here and all. I'll never have a discussion with an actual white supremacist 'in real life,' so I figure while you're here I might as well ask...

    11. damn jay why you so mad? I was born in this city in Gtown. You are a foreigner to me who is prob a crackhead and has HEP C among other things. Put down the pipe and demonstrate what you say instead of looking in a mirror to admire that you are as white as powder and how you love your new hair product.

      I'm just trying to tell you man. Lay off the crack. If you don't you won't be able to afford living under the EL.

    12. Yeah. Sure, dude.

      The only Gtown you know is from that one time when your parents got lost driving from Conshohocken to Marcus Hook, and you cowered in the back seat of the Volvo behind your sister once the homes started closing in.

      Glad to know our city made such an impression upon you that one time that you've decided to hold it against us all of your life, though.

      Do keep up the bigoted codewords and dog-whistles though, Mr. Buchanan.

    13. Perhaps you can even tell us more about how poor Helen Thomas was simply misunderstood...

      You lowlife antisemite, you.

    14. Choomin,

      "I'm all for self-determination as long as it doesn't infringe on the human rights of others."

      And what rights of the Arab nation are infringed on when the Jews set up a nation-state of their own well away from their indigenous territory of the Arabian Peninsula? The Arabs are in no position to complain of dispossession. You may be lying to yourself, but you're still a liar: You're against the right of self-determination for the indigenous Palestinians—the Jews—and you justify that indefensible stance by recasting Zionism as "European colonialism" in a feat of denialism that's worse than Holocaust Denial.

      You sick humanitarian racists with your "white man's burden" smear can keep on ignoring the "Arab man's burden" of Islamic colonization, but you won't be spared its consequences. It's already come to London, Paris and Stockholm, and it's not Israel that "causes" it—all they need to get fired up is a bunch of stupid cartoons. But keep trying to appease Islamic imperialism on the Jewish state's expense, and keep wrapping your cowardice with that noble veneer of resisting "white colonialism" that ended about three decades ago. Stupid, useful idiots.

    15. "...a wellspring of foolish racial theories..."

      You're describing yourself, Choomin—your entire political side. There's no better expression than "foolish racial theories" for the idea that Jewish nationalism is a remnant of European colonialism.

      "...what I say, which is that colonialism and racism are still alive and well in this day and age..."

      Nope, that's not what you said. You said the return of the Jews to their land is colonialism and racism, and that sure is worse than Holocaust Denial. That denies not something that happened 70 years ago, but about 3000 years of Jewish history.

      I agree colonialism is alive and well in this day and age, though. It is largely perpetrated by the adherents of the one and only religion the Far Left somehow doesn't consider to be the opiate of the masses.

      "If we don't prepare ourselves, the yellow and brown hoards will overrun western civilization and that black guy might start dating my sister! - A zionists worst fear."

      Thank you for a piece of your own fevered imagination. Special thanks from me, a resident of the Jewish state where now brown people (Sephardi Jews) are the majority. The racism is wholly yours.

      "Jews in Israel, on average, score 10 to 20 points lower on IQ tests then diaspora jews."

      IQ points, huh? That's the stuff of every thread on cesspools like Stormfront. You should go there, you'd fit right in.

      "Where they can relax as the master race of the land..."

      I see no one claiming master race privileges for this land except the Arabs.

  5. She called for no such thing. Why do people just make shit up to further their narrative?

  6. http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/2013/06/republican-jewish-coalition-statement.html

  7. An example of Sam Power's favorite new posting:

    The script reads like this: Israel treats wounded Syrian refugees in its own hospitals. Syria produces a report alleging an “acute shortage of primary and tertiary health care services” in the Golan Heights region. A United Nations agency, citing the Syrian report rather than acknowledging Israel’s actions, condemns Israel.

    She'll fit right in.

  8. I guess I would wonder why so many "progressive" diaspora Jews ultimately think that Arab hatred and violence toward the tiny Jewish minority in the Middle East is the fault of the Jewish people and why they would defend an American politician that calls for forcible "intervention" as Samantha Powers does?

    The truth of the matter is that progressive-left Jewry - which is the big majority within the diaspora Jewish community - tend to believe that the real problem is not Islamic theocratic hatred toward Jews, but the Jewish inclination to live in Judea and Samaria, our traditional homeland.

    Any Jew who claims to support Israel and that also supports Samantha Power is a fool.

    It is hardly surprising that the anti-Israel Obama administration would put forth such a person.

    Stuart, Trudy made nothing up.

    Power called, quite specifically, for a possible "intervention."

    In other words, despite the fact that the Jews have always accepted a two-state solution, Sam Power thinks that the Jews need to be forced to accept a two-state solution.

    Get your head out of the sand, for Chrissake.

    The Oslo years are over. Bill Clinton is no longer in office.

    Times have changed.

  9. The nervous chuckle at 0:56 where she's essentially spouting ZOG is telling.

    At 1:39 I do hear her say that we specifically must defend, presumably not the Israelis, against "major human rights abuses which we're seeing" at 1:39. Though I'm hearing impaired (thank you, meningitis at 19!), so if I'm hearing that wrong please correct me.

    Stuart, I'm sorry but I do have to say that I see this interview generally the same way Trudy does. I would like to hear your contrary take on it, however.

  10. (Deleted comment below, to put this in its proper place)

    I responded a bit below, but what I'm wondering is has she said things to the contrary elsewhere?

    I'm not aware of any such thing, but if she has I would like to know. It's not out of the realm of possibility.

    I see that interview the same way you and Trudy do. Perhaps there's another out there which would soften her ugly stances a bit? Perhaps she's changed her views since then? If so, I'd certainly welcome that knowledge.

    As it is, that little nervous chuckle at 0:56 in the interview tells it all, in my view.

  11. Mike, she was asked a hypothetical. Though I have no doubt her response was specifically related to Israel, the question included the proviso "when one side or the other be looking like they might be moving toward genocide". She didn't come close to claiming that the situation (which was more than 10 years ago) was looking anything like genocide. The most she did was to say that human rights violations were taking place.

    And there was nothing in that piece that was remotely like "ethnic cleansing of Israel".

    And lest this sounds like I'm defending Obama's choice of Powers, I'm not. I think she's far too biased. But that doesn't mean there's any need to simply make shit up that never happened. What she actually has said is bad enough.

  12. Thanks for the clarification, Stuart. Your stance makes more sense to me now.

    That ugly nervous chuckle at 0:56, while spouting classic ZOG rhetoric, is what really grates on me most about that interview.

  13. http://www.algemeiner.com/2011/04/11/samantha-power-clarifies-her-comments-on-israel/

    Her references to "alienating a domestic constituency of tremendous political and financial import" are troubling, and her orientation seems too postmodern, which means biased toward the Palestinians despite all their antics that reveal their anti-peace intentions.

  14. Stuart,

    there comes a point where you have to take a side.

    When it comes to the Arab war against the Jews, have you taken a side?

    If you have, I honestly do not see it.

  15. I guess that depends on whether you think taking a side means the freedom to make up as much shit as you please about those who disagree with you. If you think it does, then no, I haven't taken a side. I prefer to stick with factual arguments, irrespective of any side.

  16. OK, Stuart,

    So we now know where we stand.

    Here's a fact:

    The Jewish people are the victims of thirteen centuries of persecution under Islamic imperial rule.

    That is a fact, Stuart.

    If you do not want to take a side, that is your prerogative.

    But if you refuse to take a side - or a stand - then what is it that you think that you stand for?

    If you cannot even bring yourself to stand up for your own people, then what is your purpose in the larger discussion?

    I do not see it, because it is not there.

  17. I agree with your statement. Unequivocally. My side, which is the same side as yours, whether you believe it or not, doesn't require me to lie and mischaracterize the truth. Lying about what people who you disagree with have said and done doesn't improve our case for Israel. The case for Israel is strong enough without it.

  18. Can you describe "your" side, which is the "same side," whether believed or not.

    What other sides are there and what threat, if any, do they pose to Israel and Jews?

    It is unclear from reading your comments.

  19. My side is the one that believes it is imperative that Israel continue to exist as a Jewish state. The arguments I have are: The history; More than 1000 years of state sponsored persecution (at least at times) by every country in North Africa, the entire Arab Peninsula and almost every single country in Europe at one time. And Israel exists; It may not have been pretty for all, and downright unfair to some. The Nakba, as unfortunate as it may have been and regardless of the imagined number, whether the real one was 100,000 or 1,000,000, was at very least offset by the same number of Jews being expelled from Arab countries, and doesn't begin to compare to the Jewish tragedy of the same era.

    I don't really need anymore than that. The only real question that remains is how do we get from where we are to a peaceful coexistence. Erasing Israel isn't an answer. One state for all isn't an answer. That the Arabs don't want it, or the Jews don't want it, isn't an answer.

  20. http://www.unz.org/Author/GeneralChoomin_DailyKos

  21. Stuart,

    given your comment above, I do not see where our disagreement is exactly, beyond the fact that you refuse to acknowledge the role of the Obama administration in the rise of political Islam.

    I do not "make up" anything.

    Samantha Power is a logical Obama administration choice for the position of UN ambassador because the Obama administration is entirely unfriendly to the Jewish state of Israel.

    You may not want to face that fact, but fact it is.

    You seem incapable of facing unpleasant truths when those truths confront your political views. You refuse to acknowledge that the Obama administration helped the rise of the political Islam throughout the Middle East, particularly in Egypt.

    This is not a theory or a notion or a hypothesis. It is a fact.

    We can detail just how the administration did so, but that the administration did so is not in doubt.

    Your political movement, the progressive-left, my former political movement, has betrayed the Jewish people because it has accepted anti-Semitic anti-Zionism as part of the larger coalition. The Obama administration reflects this fact as anyone can clearly see who is not ideologically beholden to the movement, itself.

    Look, I respect you. I think that you are an intelligent guy who wants what's best for everyone concerned, including the Arabs, but there must come a point where you acknowledge the obvious.

    The obvious in this case is that the Obama administration has an underlying hostility toward Israel and the Power nomination is further evidence of that fact. How much more evidence do you need?

    I begin to wonder if anything could make you see what is very clear to many of us?

    I suspect not.