Ilhan Omar

Let's get one thing straight: criticism of Israel is not the equivalent of antisemitism, and criticism of AIPAC is even less so.  It has been years since the American Israel Public Affairs Committee could be said to lobby on behalf of the State of Israel.  Today, it lobbies on behalf of Israel's Likud Party and, more specifically, on behalf of Bibi Netanyahu.

“It’s all about the Benjamins baby!”
It's true that AIPAC itself makes no political contributions: it merely "suggests" that favored candidates for office enjoy the largess of wealthy Jewish (and Evangelical) supporters – and those supporters write substantial checks to favored candidates and their superPACs.  (I can't help thinking that part of the problem with Omar's remark was that "Benjamin" sounds like a Jewish name.)  Pelosi forced an apology for that one, even though much of the uproar was motivated by prejudice against Muslims.

"Allegiance to a foreign country"
Dual loyalty is a "Jewish stereotype" that, frankly, I'd never heard of before.  I do remember people questioning whether John F. Kennedy would be more loyal to the Constitution or the Pope, but somehow I missed the part about Jews and Israel.  (Granted, my Hebrew school taught more Zionism than Hebrew, so I guess it's plausible.)  Notwithstanding all that, "allegiance" was a very poor choice of words.

Congressional support for Israel, not limited to Jewish members, is more a conditioned response than a true allegiance.  The US has supported Israel since 1948, usually with ample justification; but Netanyahu's Israel has become a different country.  The Palestinian "territories" are governed like the bantustans of apartheid South Africa, and Bibi is forming political alliances with open racists — not just the closeted ones.  This is happening with the encouragement and support of American conservatives, not all of whom are Jews.

The rebuke of Ilhan Omar seems to be intended as a warning to other young, progressive Democrats who might have the temerity to suggest American support for Israel might become a little more conditional.  I hope they don't knuckle under: it really is time for a change.

Shorts

Gun politics
The manufacturers of the "Bumpstock" profited mightily from the free advertising provided by Stephen Paddock, the Las Vegas shooter; but now that sales have dropped off again, Our President is willing to consider a ban.  Whoopie.  Wayne LaPierre of the NRA says those who support gun control are "socialists" — but, apparently, not Maoists, who believe that "political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."  I don't believe those wonderfully articulate young socialists from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School will change any Republican votes on gun control, but I feel certain they are helping themselves by channeling their grief and trauma into activism.

Tsuris for Bibi
It looks like years of corruption accusations finally have caught up with Bibi Netanyahu as his co-conspirators prepare to turn state's evidence against him.  Nevertheless, an impending indictment won't interrupt his plans to attend the AIPAC conference in Washington starting March 4, and to meet with Tr*mp for the fifth time.  AIPAC, which always has represented not Israel but Likud, will greet Bibi with cheers.  Tr*mp and Netanyahu can commiserate, and nobody should be surprised if Tr*mp recycles the comment he made about Rob Porter: "He says he's innocent."

Recent developments

Syriza victory

Germany continues to insist that Greece will necessarily carry on with with its existing austerity regime in order to get the next installment of its bailout.  What Merkel and Co. fail to note is that the next bailout installment is earmarked to make payments on earlier loans, and the Greeks themselves will see not a cent.  After five years of depression (not recession), the last think Greece needs is higher taxes and more cuts in government services.  Alexis Tsipras knows this, and can feel quite confident that the troika will not go out of its way to screw itself, and thereby destabilize the euro.  There will be renegotiation.

Netanyahu address

I have a feeling that Boehner's invitation to Bibi to address Congress will backfire against both of them.  Boehner has given Obama a splendid opportunity to snub the Israeli hawk, and close a little more of the distance between the USofA and Iran.  Was the invitation AIPAC's idea?  Probably.  AIPAC doesn't lobby for Israel, it lobbies for Likud.

ANWR

Lisa Murkowski is livid, and Obama is grinning, even though he knows that permanently excluding oil and gas drilling from the Reserve won't be happening under this Congress.  Most of what we're likely get from Our President over the next two years is a succession of symbolic gestures, but while provoking Yosemite Sam impersonations from Republicans actually accomplishes nothing, it's still fun.

"American Sniper"

I have a copy, but I haven't gotten around to watching it yet.  Eastwood actually is a talented director when he's not having conversations with empty chairs, so whether or not the film is "politically significant," it most likely will be watchable.

On and on...

When the world gets especially depressing, as it is now, it is very hard for we chronic depressives to update our blogs.  I guess it's time for more "short subjects."

Cliven Bundy and Donald Sterling

Two racists in the news, one a hero to Fox commentators and the other a recipient of awards from the NAACP, are a lot less depressing than some of the other shit going on.

Bundy has stolen over a million dollars in grazing fees from the American public over the past ten years, but because he's stolen it from the government, it was okay by Fox.  When he started blowing off about how blacks would be better off in slavery, Fox thought it best to back off.  Oops!

Sterling, who changed his name from Tokowitz, probably is a self-hating Jew as well as a racist.  Well, who cares?  It's just sports, after all, and the NBA has kicked him to the curb.  It took a little too long for the NAACP to suspend his latest recognition after the shit hit the fan, but he'd given the group a hell of a lot of money.  Gag me with a spoon.

Apartheid

John Kerry's use of the work "apartheid" was right as rain.  All Mahmoud Abbas has to do is dissolve the Palestinian Authority, and leave Israel in total control.  That would be apartheid, no matter what AIPAC has to say about it.

Ukraine

Honestly, I'm not sure why the Kiev "authorities" should have any more authority than than the pro-Russian "groups" in the east.  Neither bunch was elected, and they're both occupying government buildings.

That is not to say that the Yanokovich kleptocrats were especially legitimate, given how they  looted a couple of billion bucks from a country that didn't have it to spare.  Well, money is money, and nothing else much matters.

Romney in Israel

Demonstrating his usual absence of anything resembling sensitivity, Mitt Romney kissed Binyamin Netanyahu's ass a couple of days ago, noting how Israeli "culture" must be superior to the Palestinian "culture next door" because the Israelis have more money.  A lot of journalists and others have pointed out that it's hard to attain economic success while under occupation — but why belabor the obvious?

What I heard was the old stereotype of the "shrewd" Jewish businessman.  Okay, that "shrewd" label, in the case of Jews, tends to include "cheap," "cutthroat," "greedy," "selfish," and "corrupt."  Hey!  No wonder Romney admires them so much!  I wonder if anyone from AIPAC noticed.

Israelis and Palestinians, however, are not the only "neighbors" Romney cited with regard to one being economically superior to the other.  Another comparison, of course, was the USofA v. Mexico; yet another was Chile v. Ecuador.  For those accusing Romney of racism, those comparisons offer only more ammunition.

The USofA, as Sheriff Joe Arpaio clearly has observed, is a hell of a lot whiter than the predominantly mestizo Mexico.  Chile, where the indigenous population was pretty much wiped out by the Conquistadores, had its "white" population greatly "enhanced" by emigrant Germans and Italians.  Ecuador still is pretty much mestizo and Indio.

Nice examples, Mitt.  As I recall, your quasi-Christian cult first allowed black members to be admitted to your priesthood way back in 1978, when you were in your early thirties.  Given all of the above, it just might be reasonable to wonder if you might be a racist.

Whatever.  Clearly, you want to attract many more big big bucks from Sheldon Adeldon — who accompanied you to Israel — and also from as many other right-wing corporatist Jews as you can suck into your bottomless maw.  Most Jews, however — those who are not millionaires — remain pretty strong for Obama

AIPAC, again

So Our President addressed the American Israel Public Affairs Committee again, and he said blah, blah, blah... I don't care.

What particularly annoys me is how the major media, including the "left leaning" NPR and New York Times, refer to AIPAC — either as the "pro-Israel" lobby, or, worse yet, the "Jewish" lobby. AIPAC is not "pro-Israel," it is pro-Likud. It does not now, nor has it ever represented Kadima, much less Labor. It does not now, nor has it ever represented progressive American Jews — and such Jews still are not in short supply. AIPAC is just another lobby, funded like every other lobby — by the very rich. Yes, they're very rich Jews, for the most part, but so what?

I suppose there are a bunch of rabbis preaching right-wing Israeli politics from the pulpit — but let me assure you, American politicians, that their congregations are not listening. The elderly regulars, who just keep davening no matter what else is happening, stopped listening to anything years ago — and the family and guests of the Bar Mitzvah boy are just thinking about how much longer it will be before they get to chow down on the kiddush.

Unless AIPAC comes up with a hell of a lot of money for a particular politician's campaign, I think it can, finally, be safely ignored. Nevertheless, isn't it time for some very rich progressive Jews, both in Israel and the United States, to fund some competition?

Obama at AIPAC

I was very interested to hear what Our President had to say to AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Many think of AIPAC as the chief lobbyist for Israel, but that is somewhat off the mark. AIPAC is the chief lobbyist for Likud. When Labour is in power, AIPAC's perspective does not change in any way. AIPAC represents the Israeli right wing, not Israel as a whole, and could not care less where Israeli public opinion falls at any particular time. Supported by old-line Zionists and Christian fundamentalists hoping to accelerate the advent of "end times," AIPAC has no interest in making peace with the Arab world. As long as American taxes go to feed the Israeli military, AIPAC has achieved its purpose.

Regular readers of this blog will appreciate how pleasantly surprised I was when Our President actually held his ground while addressing yesterday's AIPAC convocation, and did not pull back on the statement which referred to 1967 borders despite a major hissy fit by Bibi Netanyahu. Yes, he recognizes that some land swaps will be necessary to accommodate forty years of imperialist incursion, but he didn't back down. Whoopie doo!

Interestingly, it was Bibi who backed down, despite encouragement from Mitch McConnell and others who pander to Christians hoping to bring about an early Apocalypse. Did Obama suggest that the United States might not block the Palestinian Authority's attempt to gain recognition as a nation from the UN unless the Likudniks made enough concessions to get Abbas back to the bargaining table? I'd like to think so, but then, there are a lot of things I'd like to think.

(I'd like to think BSK was set up, but I know he's just another of those powerful men who thinks his dick is a scepter embodying unlimited sexual power. Somebody really ought to inject all those guys with medroxyprogesterone 17-acetate. It would be a far better world.)

Understanding Joe Lieberman

Last post, I risked being thought racist. This time, I'll risk being thought anti-Semitic. It's probably a good thing that nobody actually reads this blog.

I'm not at all surprised that the Democratic caucus voted to keep Lieberman today, and let him keep the chair of the Homeland Security Committee. With Lieberman on board, there's a slim chance the Democrats can grab a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Without him, there's no chance at all.

Anyway, Joe Lieberman really is a Democrat. Look at his voting record, and there's absolutely no doubt. If Lieberman really was McCain's first choice for running mate, McCain's judgment -- politically, at least -- is even worse than indicated by the Sarah Palin choice. Lieberman diverges from the Democratic line in just one area -- foreign policy. You see, there's one group that claims greater loyalty from Lieberman than the Democratic Party -- and it's not the voters of Connecticut. That group is AIPAC -- the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

Iraq never presented a threat to the United States. Even if somebody actually believed the hype about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and associated delivery systems, there was no threat to the United States. There might have been a threat, however, to Israel. Threat or no threat, the idea of a U.S. puppet government in Iraq must have looked pretty good to a lot of Israelis. The real threat, of course, is Iran -- and permanent U.S. bases next door in Iraq could not help but improve Israeli security.

Fiasco notwithstanding, the U.S. staying in Iraq for however long it takes to achieve "victory" is a policy that works for AIPAC, and, hence, for Lieberman. Given decades of indoctrination by AIPAC and his Orthodox rabbis -- not to mention Connecticut defense contractors -- Lieberman had to side with Bush, McCain, and Exxon-Mobil rather than Obama and the Democrats in the recent election.

The hell of it is that AIPAC isn't a particularly good representative of Israel. AIPAC is a much better representative of Likud, and its leader Benjamin "Bibi" Netanyahu, than of Israel's current Kadima government. Rightist Likud naturally tends to allign itself with the rightist religious parties, and Lieberman is an Orthodox jew. Go figure.

It might be helpful if somebody could arrange a meeting between Joe Lieberman and Tzipi Livni, Israel's new Prime Minister. Maybe she could convey to Lieberman that support for AIPAC is not necessarily support for Israel.