The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    jollyroger's picture

    HRC to AIPAC, BDS to pressure Israel? antisemitism!

    By jollyroger on Tue, 03/22/2016 - 2:25am |

    In a speech that (not surprisingly) left a tiny escape hatch of ambiguity, Hillary attacked the entirely peaceful and historically legitimate tactic of bringing to bear the moral and economic suasion of withholding commercial relationships, divesting investment holdings,and expressing outspoken condemnation in the hope of ending the current apartheid regime in occupied Palestine.

    "Many of the young people here today are on the front lines of the battle to oppose the alarming boycott, divestment and sanctions movement known as BDS. (APPLAUSE) Particularly at a time when anti-Semitism is on the rise across the world, especially in Europe, we must repudiate all efforts to malign, isolate and undermine Israel and the Jewish people. (APPLAUSE) I’ve been sounding the alarm for a while now. As I wrote last year in a letter to the heads of major American Jewish organizations, we have to be united in fighting back against BDS. Many of its proponents have demonized Israeli scientists and intellectuals, even students. CLINTON: To all the college students who may have encountered this on campus, I hope you stay strong. Keep speaking out. Don’t let anyone silence you, bully you or try to shut down debate, especially in places of learning like colleges and universities. (APPLAUSE) Anti-Semitism has no place in any civilized society, not in America, not in Europe, not anywhere. (APPLAUSE)"

     

     Not only is the conflation of anti Zionism with antisemitism factually inaccurate and morally flawed, but the fundamental premise of anti BDS argument is wrong

     

    Vote for Hillary, she's deeper in the tank for Israel than Abu Shiksa.

     

    (Abu Shiksa is the code nom de guerre by which Trump is known to Shin Bet, because his Protestant by birth daughter is married to Jared Kushner, M.O.T.)

    Comments

    For those who skipped Yiddish 101, a "Shiksa" is a non Jewish girl.  Used (approvingly) in a sentence " I saw Jared and his new girlfriend.  He was stylin'!  Got'im a Shiksa!"

     

    Abu, of course is arabic for  "Father of "


    by jollyroger on Tue, 03/22/2016 - 2:33am

    Take my Shiksa!  Please.

    Who was that Shiksa I saw you with last night?

    Actually, when I was in little theatre I often heard the term, "show goy", meaning, I think, "showy"or, " for show".And not a compliment.


    by Oxy Mora on Tue, 03/22/2016 - 2:30pm

    One is inexorably drawn to recall Buckley's wry formulation that antisemitism posed less of a threat to the continued existence of Jews as a separate people than did sexy shiksas.


    by jollyroger on Tue, 03/22/2016 - 7:09pm

    AFAIK, this is continuation of Obama policy, and I didn't expect we'd take on AIPAC anytime soon. First rule is to get elected. AIPAC is stronger than all of us. Quick, release the secret transcripts. No idea what M.O.T. means.


    by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 03/22/2016 - 2:45am

    I've heard white supremacists use the term to describe Jewish people. MOT = member of the tribe

     


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 03/22/2016 - 8:23am

    I didn't have that in mind.  I've heard it used among teenaged Jewish girls, to signify that a particular boy ( " is he an mot?") Was  or was not marriage material.


    by jollyroger on Tue, 03/22/2016 - 7:16pm

    AIPAC is only "stronger than all of us" because more people chose to vote for Hillary Clinton than for Bernie Sanders.


    by HSG on Tue, 03/22/2016 - 8:02pm

    Seeing ISRAEL for what it is does not equal antisemitism.  Or does it?

    (I deleted the descriptors I was thinking of.  I guess it's obvious, based on their behavior towards us and the rest of the world.)

    PS:  I believe that Palestinians are also "Semites," no?


    by CVille Dem on Tue, 03/22/2016 - 9:54am

    It is a peculiar usage, especially when (semitic) Arabs are accused of the offensive bigotry.


    by jollyroger on Tue, 03/22/2016 - 7:11pm

    At AIPAC, Clinton campaigned against Obama.  She embraced Netanyahu and issued a call to take our relationship with Israel "to the next level".  She did not mention Obama once.  Meanwhile Trump's biggest applause line came when he expressed joy that Obama's Presidency has less than one year to go. 

    Although Clinton often speaks in a calculated nuanced way, e.g, "based on what I have seen, [I]" I don't support the TPP, at AIPAC, she declared unambiguously:

    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.

    (APPLAUSE)

    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.

    Clinton did not say, imply, or suggest that America's commitment to Israel's "qualitative military edge" will come with strings attached.  She did not insist that Israel must stop the West Bank settlements or commit to provide humanitarian aid to impoverished desperate Gazans.  And some people claim Bernie Sanders has already won.


    by HSG on Tue, 03/22/2016 - 1:34pm

    AIPAC has already won. Revisit in 10 years.


    by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 03/22/2016 - 2:09pm

    Sanders gave a strong speech on the plight of the Palestinians while campaigning in Utah.

    Wouldn't a stronger message have been sent if he gave it in person?

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-aipac-israel_us_56f07...


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 03/22/2016 - 2:36pm

    Arab-Americans seem to have gotten the message as the majority voted for Sanders in Michigan.  I have spoken with a Palestinian-American who educates at Howard.  She is a staunch Sanders supporter and has been campaigning on his behalf.  Perhaps Sanders should have spoken to AIPAC but he would have been booed and it would have been a waste of his time.


    by HSG on Tue, 03/22/2016 - 7:07pm

    I think he made a stronger statement by not coming


    by jollyroger on Tue, 03/22/2016 - 7:13pm

    I agree.


    by HSG on Tue, 03/22/2016 - 7:59pm

    What?  Did he say something he could actually accomplish?  Oh, never mind.   


    by CVille Dem on Tue, 03/22/2016 - 8:53pm

    'The plight of the Palestinians' has been vastly undermined by the plight of all the victims of Sunni Muslim terror and genocide, from Iraq to France.

    Palestinian causes are not likely to be a winner this election year or any in the foreseeable future.

    The pro-Sunni terrorist HAMAS apologist - 'if only Israel would give them rights, more land and the vote' doesn't conform to what all but the most jaded or naive of the world is seeing as natural born Sunni Muslims and full citizens of EU nations blow themselves up in trains and airports of Europe.

    It looks more and more like Israel knows more than us or Europe about how to handle this unique and insular group of people so easily dominated by terror groups and prone to incitement to violence.

    And yet Israel does have about 1 1/2 million Arab Muslim full citizens within Israel and many Arab members parliament.


    by NCD on Tue, 03/22/2016 - 10:13pm

    You are probably correct. On the other hand, Bernie might have been able to focus on root causes of Muslim radicalization.


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 03/22/2016 - 10:17pm

    The US's full-throated embrace of Israel regardless of her crimes against Palestinians, the EU's ever closer relationship with Israel, NATO's wars on Iraq and Libya and their aftermath, the drone attacks, western embrace of Arab autocrats, and anthropogenic global warming, are all major factors driving worldwide Islamic terrorism.


    by HSG on Tue, 03/22/2016 - 10:21pm

    Qaddafi was an autocrat. Did you want us to support him or the Benghazi popular protesterrs? You cant have it both ways.

    The US wasnt in Iraq or most other Muslim countries on 9/11, and had tried to strike a peace deal for Palestinians in 2000. How do those justify USS Cole, African Embassy bombings and 9/11?

    And the global warming bit is silly.

    Is this blame everything on the west day? Bad timing. Belgiunm's hardly a cauldron of hatred to fight against, and killing civilians in the metro hardly addresses NATO or lowers western police & military tolerance towards the Mideast. And most of the deaths in Iraq were Arabs killing Arabs. Theres another problem you're avoiding.


    by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 03/23/2016 - 4:08am

    I don't think it's fair to blame terrorism on western embrace of Arab autocrats, because Al Qaeda and ISIS want autocracy(the caliphate). If anything, they think the autocrats we favor are too liberal.


    by Aaron Carine (not verified) on Thu, 03/31/2016 - 5:58pm

    I disagree. Hillary gave a predictable speech. If Sanders was willing to give the same speech that he gave in Utah before a hostile crowd, he would have gotten points for looking strong. I suspect that his Utah speech will be lost to history. Speaking strength to power would have made the political conversation about Sanders. Now no matter what happens in the Primaries today, the conversation will be about Hillary's inevitable March to victory. Sanders lost a great opportunity.


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 03/22/2016 - 10:13pm

    I wish he had. I imagine his time was tight trying to do well yesterday, but I would have appreciated the turd in the AIPAC punchbowl. Another 4 years without serious peace efforts :-(

     


    by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 03/23/2016 - 4:13am

    This is obvious. We can have all sorts of disagreements as to whether he should or shouldn't have gone or what he should have said. But clearly, speaking before a hostile crowd and telling them things they don't want to hear makes a stronger statement than refusing to speak to them.


    by ocean-kat on Wed, 03/23/2016 - 4:39am

    Kinda like what  I say here to the Clinton crew huh?


    by HSG on Wed, 03/23/2016 - 6:47am

    Your statement makes no sense given that you argued that Sanders did not have to speak at the conference. Are you now saying that Sanders made a mistake? 


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 03/23/2016 - 8:13am

    I was likening a hypothetical Sanders speech before a hostile AIPAC to my arguments here to the Hillary supporters.  Do you think he would been any more effective than I am?


    by HSG on Wed, 03/23/2016 - 5:06pm

    I doubt he would have started off calling Hillary a liar or neocon, or gone on and on about how she used "racially charged" language re: "superpredators" (and the 2008 race), and I doubt if he'd start of saying you can't trust Hillary. And if we asked him questions, he'd probably try to answer them rather than saying we were hopeless and would never change our minds.

    And the speech to AIPAC illuminates the difference for me - I'm much more in agreement with Bernie's speech than Hillary's (I think, didn't read either all the way through) - but I see Hillary as the very likely nominee and speaking up about AIPAC and our strange relationship with Israel has no upside for her. Contrariwise, I don't see Bernie as having much to lose, and it shows him off as more a straight-shooter, though it would have been much more effective at the conference (but I again recognize he likely had heavy campaigning to do in Idaho, Utah & Arizona, so the question comes up "how many delegates would it win/how would it progress his goals" vs staying in-state & campaigning).

    It's much easier for candidates who aren't expected to win to say anything and everything. That's obviously been true with Trump who never worried about the truth in his life & who now finds himself in the lead by speaking out his ass. Anything Hillary says will be dissected much more carefully than Bernie - he's allowed to play more of a provoking cheerleader for his causes, and since we all want miracles and long-needed breakthroughs, it's nice to entertain this breath of fresh air.

    E.g. wouldn't we all like someone to confront Santelli once for being such a douche?


    by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 03/23/2016 - 10:03am

    No. It's unlikely a Sanders speech would have changed the mind of any member of AIPAC. The difference is that  your "speeches" here don't get national news coverage and aren't read by millions of people who are not members of AIPAC.


    by ocean-kat on Wed, 03/23/2016 - 2:56pm

     Sanders is sympathetic to Israel while a lot of his constituents are strongly hostile to Israel. But he has mostly satisfied me--he talked about Palestinian suffering, advocated even-handedness, complained about settlements and about Washington allowing Israel to do "bad things". His criticism of the slaughter in Gaza was kind of mild though.


    by Aaron Carine (not verified) on Sun, 03/27/2016 - 6:02pm

    I agree that Sanders mde a stronger statement by staying away from AIPAC and addressing the same issues at other venues. He did offer to give a televised response, something that has been allowed before, but that way of addressing the conference was disallowed. Here is an analysis of the offerings by both Clinton and Trump which points out how similar their speeches were. I think they suck equally. 

     


    by A Guy Called LULU on Wed, 03/23/2016 - 7:22pm

    I understand how Clinton dissing the BDS plays to the AIPAC crowd but I don't understand how Sanders not being there works as a counter to the pander.

    As far as identity politics go, if you want to challenge a prevailing view held by a majority of "your" crowd, you would go to the meeting place and confront them or agree with them. This displaced message doesn't do either.


    by moat on Wed, 03/23/2016 - 8:47pm

    I had mistakenly interpreted his no show as as a snub, only to learn that he had asked to speak remotely via live stream, which rather diminishes the impact of the slap in the face


    by jollyroger on Thu, 03/24/2016 - 1:15am

    Confronting AIPAC would have had no impact on AIPAC as the group's funders set the agenda and it is a hard-line one on all fours with the preferences of the conservative Likud party in Israel.  Still some here are criticizing Sanders for not showing up.  Others argue he shouldn't have agreed to appear even via satellite or videotape.  The bottom-line is he's the only candidate whose Middle East policy isn't dictated by AIPAC and the Likud.  Yet one more reason that he is the best candidate by a mile.


    by HSG on Thu, 03/24/2016 - 8:05am

    Sanders supported Israeal's incursion into Gaza in 2014

    http://www.juancole.com/2015/04/president-bernie-sanders.html

    This support was in spite of the fact that Israel had attacked Gaza repeatedly despite a supposed ease fire

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/07/24/why-did-bernie-sanders-get-gaza-s...

    I don't think that there is any Presidential candidate that doesn't have a pro-Israel bias.


    by rmrd0000 on Thu, 03/24/2016 - 9:01am

    From your link (thanks by the way):

    Bernie Sanders opposed the 2003 invasion of Iraq and subsequent occupation of that country.

    Sanders wanted to get out of Afghanistan from 2011 much faster than the timetable announced by President Obama. Obama has now more or less extended a US military presence in Afghanistan, advertised as a training mission, indefinitely. My reading of Sanders is that he would get out of that country entirely.

    A President Bernie Sanders would endorse the Iran negotiations of the Obama administration.

    Sanders opposed the US taking the lead in the aerial campaign against Daesh (ISIS or ISIL) in Iraq and Syria, asking where the Arabs were and saying that American kids shouldn’t be dying to protect Saudi Arabia. The money spent on that bombing, he said, should have gone to help the US middle classes.

     


    by HSG on Thu, 03/24/2016 - 9:23am

    Sanders supported Il's action in Gaza. That would be the focus of Palestinians.


    by rmrd0000 on Thu, 03/24/2016 - 10:24am

    As almost all here agree (perhaps with varying amounts of regret,) no major party candidate is about to cut Israel loose.  GHW Bush was actually best on the trying to wrest a sdmidgen of sanity from its government.

     

    That said, the hasbaristas have been deputized specially to bsquelch BDS, often using the cry of "antisemitism! " as a cudgel.

     

    HRC could have sucked up as needed without signing onto that intellectual libel.


    by jollyroger on Fri, 03/25/2016 - 3:04am

    It boils down to our personal bias. You forgives Sanders for backing Israel's attack on Gaza which took lives. I forgive Hillary for BDS. Hillary was in a situation where decisions had to be made, so she has more baggage. Sanders was in a protected position where he could take a "courageous" stand on multiple issues because his vote was not critical. When Sanders votes to protect gun manufacturers, supporters dismiss that fault. When Sanders' vote for the 1994 crime bill is mentioned, supporters note that he had misgivings about the bill. Sanders supporters refuse to listen to arguments that Hillary did not vote to authorize Bush's war.

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/11/6/1445490/-Hillary-Clinton-did-not...

    The bottom line is that some people are angry and want change in government. Some see Sanders as the agent of change. Others look at Sanders and see no knight in shining armor. Most black and Latino activists are not supporting Sanders. Sanders admits his promises can't be kept.Many of us wonder why there is an attraction to someone who, until recently, did so little outreach. Sanders supporters either dismiss that lack of outreach, or they suggest that there is something pathological about minority groups supporting Hillary Clinton. There is never recognition of the failure of Bernie Sanders to demonstrate that he would address issue of race.

    Note: Yes, Bernie got arrested in Chicago but Hillary put herself at risk going undercover in Alabama investigating segregation in private schools. When Sanders supporters bring up Hillary as Goldwater girl, they deserve laughter. In the case of Flint, Sanders made the "bold" statement that Snyder should resign. Hillary actually sent people to Flint to give guidance on cutting through red tape.

    Hillary's corporate campaign funds are part of the method used to fund down ticket candidates. As far as I know, Sanders is not raising money for down ticket Democrats. Given lack of financial support from Sanders to support politicians to participate in the "revolution", the revolution may flame out.

    I still don't feel the Berne


    by rmrd0000 on Fri, 03/25/2016 - 8:29am

    I relied on the link to Counterpunch too, until I was informed, rather to my embarrassment, that their charge that Sanders voted for the resolution was false. He abstained.

    Cole doesn't quote Sanders supporting the slaughter in Gaza. I remember Sanders telling an audience he was "concerned" about "Israel's overreaction"(tepid criticism, but criticism) and telling Anderson Cooper he was appalled by the killing of civilians. Sanders seemed to accept, in principal, Israel's right to take action against the rocket attacks, without endorsing the actual, disproportionate response. That isn't an outrageous position. Accepting, in theory, Israel's right of self-defense doesn't exactly make you a Likudnik.


    by Aaron Carine (not verified) on Thu, 03/31/2016 - 6:13pm

    If you come home from work to find me burgling your house, will I be heard successfully to argue that my bashing in your head with the poker from your fireplace was an act of self defense?


    by jollyroger on Sun, 04/03/2016 - 8:28am

    Israel's attention to the shaping of public opinion  is, coincidentally, the subject of a documentary.  Below from. A CounterPunch reprint:

     

            "

    Whatever one’s position on how to resolve the conflict, it is uncontroversial that Israel could not continue occupying Palestinian territory without U.S. diplomatic, military, and economic support, and it’s unlikely that support could continue without the backing—or, at least, acquiescence—of the U.S. public.

    Israeli officials understand that, and “The Occupation of the American Mind” offers a sophisticated analysis of their strategy to keep both policymakers and the public in the United States on their side, illustrated with detailed examples of how Israel successfully borrows from the contemporary advertising/marketing/public relations industries—the folks who produce what is best described as propaganda.

    The basics of that propaganda are easy to identify: simplistic phrases, repeated over and over, designed to engage emotions rather than produce rational arguments, all shaped to fit into a narrative of good (Western-oriented Israel, the Middle East’s only true democracy) versus evil (Arab/Muslim terrorists who seek not only to destroy the Jewish state but kill all Jews).

    To accept this impoverished account of the conflict, we would have to rewrite history, reject international law, and ignore the struggle over land and resources that is at the heart of the conflict. Because those realities have been so obscured, “The Occupation of the American Mind” begins with a straightforward account of the politics of the conflict. No summary of such a contentious issue is neutral, of course, but the film explains clearly the 1948 and 1967 wars that left Israel in its current position of overwhelming dominance. Israel’s image as an underdog fighting for survival became difficult to sustain after those military victories and the beginning of the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. That’s where the propaganda campaign becomes central.

    Israel invested considerable resources in the media project after its brutal 1982 invasion of Lebanon started to turn world opinion toward support for the Palestinian cause. Rather than reconsider its policy of maximal expansion and crushing Palestinian aspirations for a state, Israel ratcheted up its media campaign, dubbed hasbara, which translates as “explanation.” In combination with aggressive lobbying efforts on Capitol Hill, that campaign has been amazingly effective at undermining an open debate in the United States"

     

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/03/25/the-occupation-of-the-american-mi...

     

    AIPAC, of course, exists for the purpose of managing public attitudes towards Israel. 


    by jollyroger on Sat, 03/26/2016 - 12:10am

    Charging antisemitism as HRC did in her speech, where Israel's actions were being criticized is a principal weapon in this PR campaign shutting down any further deconstruction of the competing equities.

     

    This does not get Bernie a "pass" for any complaisance vis a vis the gaza incursion, but does bring Hillary out into new territory.


    by jollyroger on Sat, 03/26/2016 - 12:15am