Instead, we should call the West Bank “nondemocratic Israel.” The phrase suggests that there are today two Israels: a flawed but genuine democracy within the green line and an ethnically-based nondemocracy beyond it. It counters efforts by Israel’s leaders to use the legitimacy of democratic Israel to legitimize the occupation and by Israel’s adversaries to use the illegitimacy of the occupation to delegitimize democratic Israel.
Having made that rhetorical distinction, American Jews should seek every opportunity to reinforce it. We should lobby to exclude settler-produced goods from America’s free-trade deal with Israel. We should push to end Internal Revenue Service policies that allow Americans to make tax-deductible gifts to settler charities. Every time an American newspaper calls Israel a democracy, we should urge it to include the caveat: only within the green line.
But a settlement boycott is not enough. It must be paired with an equally vigorous embrace of democratic Israel. We should spend money we’re not spending on settler goods on those produced within the green line. We should oppose efforts to divest from all Israeli companies with the same intensity with which we support efforts to divest from companies in the settlements: call it Zionist B.D.S.
Alexandra Pelosi that is. Daughter of Nancy Pelosi.
Last week Bill Maher played a new documentary by her in which she went down to Mississippi and interviewed poor, conservative, rural, white southerners. And we on the left laughed and had a good time ridiculing them. Not because they were white. Not because they were poor. But because they were racist, especially towards the President, and using that as a reason to vote against their own economic interests. This is not some far fetched stereotype. This is a fact they are ignorant.
In 2007 Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer wrote a book entitled The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. The book asserts that the Israeli lobby forced the U.S. into war with Iraq. While many of the neo-cons were Jewish and the Israeli lobby certainly viewed a war with Iraq favorably, it is abundantly clear from everything we know about the Iraq war that it would have been carried out with or without the support of the Israeli lobby. Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld had very personal reasons for wanting to go to war with Iraq and were even hell bent on doing so before 9/11. Thus, it wouldn't be totally unfair to label Walt and Mearsheimer's book as a ZOG conspiracy theory.
The fine people at +972 catch this stunning column from the very popular Ynet:
Zionism will only cease being demonized in the politically correct corners of the West once our schools and film industry cease to demonize colonialism. The politically correct depiction of the colonialist as a racist and covetous brute must give space to the majority of well-meaning administrators that helped build roads, schools, and hospitals for the natives.
It must be shown that colonialists administered law and justice far more fairly than most pre-colonial chieftains or post-colonial despots. It must be taught that human development indicators plummeted in the majority of African and Asian countries following independence.
Once an honest discussion about colonialism is tabled, hostility to Zionism will wane in leftist circles. Not because they will shed the belief that Zionism is a form of colonialism, but because it will be possible for them to appreciate the merits of Zionism.
The Israeli far right government lately has been prone to saber rattling over Iran. In particular threatening to bomb Iran to DELAY (not end) Iran's nuclear ambitions. Which is bizarre, since I don't think there is any intelligent people who actually think Iran would launch a nuclear attack on Israel if they did get a nuclear weapon. Pakistan is probably more likely to launch a nuclear attack on India than Iran on Israel.
Glenn Greenwald, who was a cheerleader for war in the run up to the invasion of Iraq, can't seem to stop himself from making ignorant accusations against our President, who by the way vigorously opposed the Iraq war. In his most recent post Greenwald makes an outlandish charge:
Beyond that, Obama has used drones to kill Muslim children and innocent adults by the hundreds.
You could make the argument that the Obama has used predator drones too much and too carelessly in attacking suspected terrorists, which has resulted in the deaths of innocent men, women, and children. I'm not here to argue with that position. What Greenwald has done is take it a step further. The way that sentence is written it necessarily implies Obama intentionally kills Muslim children.
Now maybe you could say it was poorly written and that is not what was meant. And if it was anybody else I would believe you. However, based on Greenwald's previous writings on the President, he has been very quick to demonizing him. Greenwald deliberately wrote that sentence to get the maximum amount of outrage from his readers.
Greenwald has done and said a lot of shitty things, but I can't think of anything more outrageous - excluding his support for the Iraq war - than implying that Obama intentionally kills Muslim children. If the editors at Salon have any sort of decency they would demand that Greenwald apologize to his readers and to Obama for such an offensive and outrageous remark.
What was strangely overlooked in the most recent Politifail debacle was its bizarre defense of its ratings. Lets start with this paragraph:
In our first couple of years, we treated many of those claims very literally. If someone said jobs had gone up since a governor was in office, and we found the numbers backed it up, the statement earned a True.
This makes perfect sense. The job of a fact checker is to check the facts. Whether the policies of this hypothetical governor was actually responsible for the creation of jobs is a debatable topic better left to the pundits. After all, the name of the website is Politifact - not Politipundit.
If someone ridicules everyone they come in contact with that doesn't make them a good person because they are exercising their right to free speech. It just makes them a douche bag.
Not every outcome of the free market is a moral outcome. Mitt Romney personifies that. He has every right to engage in leveraged buyouts (LBO). Through this method Bain made a significant amount profit off the dividend recaps, thereby sticking the poor company he swindled with the bill after they jettisoned their stock. Despite Mittens' right to engage in such a practice, it still makes him a douche bag. (I'm not going to even get into the chop shop aspects of Bain Capital)
On the other hand you have moral capitalists like Warren Buffet, who make their money the old fashioned way: investing money in a company in the hopes it will become profitable in the long run, which is incidental to LBO firms.
It seems some people in the media have some difficulty with rhetorical devices - particularly analogies. I'm sure most of your know what an analogy is, but for those of you in the media it is defined as:
a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based: the analogy between the heart and a pump.
[this is my first diary, but please don’t hold back ;)]
Recently Obama signed off on the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). A provision of this act would allow the military to hold American citizens accused of being terrorists indefinitely, which by any honest assessment is unconstitutional. Obama originally threatened to veto it, but backed off after Congress watered it down so that the President could use his authority to bypass military prosecution in favor of a civilian prosecution, which requires due process. President Obama issued a signing statement saying that he would never hold American citizens indefinitely; of course that has no bearing on future presidents. Rachel Maddow – as always – gives a good explanation:
I know nothing of high-finance. I mean, I get the concept of investing in the stock market, but could not tell you what a derivative, a penny stock, a junk bond is. I took my money out of the stock ...