dagblog - Comments for "HRC to AIPAC, BDS to pressure Israel? antisemitism!"

Ifyou come home from work to

jollyroger — Sun, 03 Apr 2016 12:28:36 +0000

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?

I relied on the link to

Aaron Carine — Thu, 31 Mar 2016 22:13:33 +0000

In reply to Sanders supported Israeal's

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.

I don't think it's fair to

Aaron Carine — Thu, 31 Mar 2016 21:58:02 +0000

In reply to The US's full-throated

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.

Sanders is sympathetic to

Aaron Carine — Sun, 27 Mar 2016 22:02:54 +0000

In reply to Sanders gave a strong speech

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.

Charging antisemitism as HRC

jollyroger — Sat, 26 Mar 2016 04:15:25 +0000

In reply to Israel's attention to the

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.

Israel's attention to the

jollyroger — Sat, 26 Mar 2016 04:10:11 +0000

In reply to HRC to AIPAC, BDS to pressure Israel? antisemitism!

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.

It boils down to our personal

rmrd0000 — Fri, 25 Mar 2016 12:29:46 +0000

In reply to As almost all here agree

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

As almost all here agree

jollyroger — Fri, 25 Mar 2016 07:04:47 +0000

In reply to Sanders supported Il's action

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.

Sanders supported Il's action

rmrd0000 — Thu, 24 Mar 2016 14:24:40 +0000

In reply to From your link (thanks by the

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

From your link (thanks by the

HSG — Thu, 24 Mar 2016 13:23:07 +0000

In reply to Sanders supported Israeal's

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.