Showing posts with label Jewish Voice for Peace. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jewish Voice for Peace. Show all posts

Monday, March 11, 2019

The Ilhan Omar Kerfuffle- Another Reich Wing Tactic To Divide The Dems


 Left:: Hillary Clinton pandering to reactionary lobbyists of AIPAC in March, 2015. Right:Ilhan Omar, now the target of a smear campaign by the Right and Xtian Evangelical Repukes.

"The demonization of Rep. Ilhan Omar is a hari-kari move for the party, led by people dug in against almost any real change, doing as little as possible about all the actual crises. Demonizing a forthright congresswoman from Minnesota, who came to this country as a 12-year-old refugee from Somalia, is reactionary, mindless, unjustified and fundamentally stupid. Stupid? Yes, stupid, because it helps Republicans inflame division among Democrats with no offsetting gain."  - William Boardman,  "The Sins Of Ilhan Omar Star With Challenging Rigid Orthodoxy', smirkingchimp.com (see link at end)

After the midterm blue wave and the election of Minnesota Muslim Ilhan Omar, I told Janice it wouldn't be three months before she'd be attacked for some specious, overblown BS.  Well, I was only off by a couple months as Twitter and the forlorn Dems "blew up" after a comment (tweet) by Omar which was highlighted in a recent blog post by William Boardman:


"So what is the case against Ilhan Omar? There are a variety of alleged “smoking guns” claimed against Omar, all of which, on close examination, shoot blanks. The one that touched off the current rush to misjudgment was a short, simple tweet on February 10, 2018, here in its entirety:

“It’s all about the Benjamins, baby” [musical-notes emoji]


This is obviously a quote from a Puff Daddy song (on the album “No Way Out,” 1997), that’s what the musical notes mean. The quote is about as anti-Semitic as saying, “Money makes the world go ‘round.” It’s not anti-Semitic, it’s just true, in a pretty obvious and superficial way. It’s also a truth widely subjected to political denial."



So there you have it: one tweet interpreted in ignorance and out of context,  triggers yet another division - this time within the Dems - because too many "centrists" are still tied to the AIPAC  (America-Israel Political Action Committee) lobby.  But this goes back to when Hillary pandered to this lot three years ago.

In the case of her March, 2016 AIPAC speech,  Clinton meant every word of her saber rattling.  She professed unashamed backing of  AIPAC's Israeli nationalist agenda and even supported the warmonger Bibi Netanyahu  - who has a thing about taking out Iran-    even if it vaporizes the Middle East and Israel with it.


For the memory lapsed recall that a year before Hillary's bowing and scraping to AIPAC, Netanyahu delivered an hysterical performance on Capitol Hill.  At the invitation of the Repukes, and with fire-breathing rhetoric, "Bibi" blasted any deal apart from total Iranian nuclear disarmament and - effectively -  demanded the only alternative had to be war.

Bibi's histrionics even caught the attention of Philip Stephens  in a Financial Times article on Mar. 5, 2015  ('The Answer for Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu Is War Against Iran')  which highlighted the total awkward impropriety of it all.   Of course, the Repugs would lap it up as they're always looking for wars as a means to ramp up deficits to find excuses to cut social spending.

What was most puzzling was how this unhinged Irsraeli jackass - who more and more resembles the 'boy who cried 'Wolf!' -  has any creds left, especially after the EU and most European states "shut him out" (according to Stephens) long ago. His rants became so predictable and the over the top rhetoric so absurd that they basically tuned him out. But not the warmongering Neocons (and their evangelical allies salivating for Jews to fulfill their Armageddon prophesies) in the U.S.  


Stephens also observed that Israel's own security and political establishment - including former generals and other officials- had been critical of the speech and believed its only effect to be "a clear and present danger to Israel".

According to one observer attending the AIPAC  2016 event:

"The speech that Hillary Clinton gave to AIPAC took pandering to a new level,

As he continued, quoted in a salon.com piece:

Clinton promised to never be neutral and yet most Americans consistently express that they want the United States to be even-handed between Israel and the Palestinians. When one looks at public opinion among Democrats alone, this sentiment is even stronger and sympathy for Palestinians is even higher. This is especially true in the progressive base of the Democratic party — indeed the future of the party — made up of youth and minorities.”

Meanwhile, the social justice group Jewish Voice for Peace, or JVP, which is very critical of the Israeli government and its oppression of the Palestinians, blasted Clinton for her remarks. Rebecca Vilkomerson, the executive director of JVP, said in a statement that the discussion at AIPAC “relies on racist and Islamophobic tropes to justify unquestioning support for Israel.”


She went on to say:

"From Democrats to Republicans, the message is the same: more arms for Israel, a stronger relationship between Israel and the U.S., no mention of Palestinian rights, and no recognition of the impossible contradiction of being both democratic and Jewish when the state is predicated on maintaining systems of unequal rights and rule by military occupation,”


Now back to Ilhan Omar. American University Professor Pamela S. Nadell has  correctly noted (Sunday Denver Post, Perspective, March 10) that in one of the tweets that got so many worked up, Omar wrote:

"I should not be expected to have allegiance/pledge support to a foreign country in order to serve my country in congress or serve on committee"

Pointing out that "she didn't say or even imply anything at all about the Jews. She said she was being asked to support Israel in order to have the privilege of serving on the Foreign Affairs Committee, which was true."

Then nailing it:

"Dual loyalty is precisely what AIPAC demands and what it gets. Again, it makes this demand not of Jews but of every member of congress and even of politicians at the state level whom you wouldn't think would be conducting foreign policy and it works. "

Well, indeed it works because no congress critter wants to be called "anti-Semitic" or some permutation of it.  Am I an "anti-Semitic"? No, not at all, merely someone intelligent enough to discern the difference between vigorously criticizing a LOBBY, or having to kowtow to it,  and going after a nation state or its people.  Besides, I have written numerous posts warning of the dangers of holocaust denial, as well as the role of the RC Church in protecting escaped Nazis, see e.g.


And:


Brane Space: Of Dangerous Ideas - And 'Dumb And Dangerous Ideas ...



brane-space.blogspot.com/2016/11/of-dangerous-ideas-and-dumb-and.html


Most relevant here, Professor Nardell adds:

" 'Supporters of Israel' hasn't been a synonym  for the Jews since 1980.  I have to now repeat this: In America today a 'supporter' of Israel is much more likely to be an evangelical Christian Republican than a Jew."

Why is this? Well, because the Jews are configured into the crackpot apocalyptic fantasies and prophesies of the evangelicals and fundamentalists. They  have been (most notably) since Hal Lindsey's book The Late, Great Planet Earth’ – which set the stage long before the “Left Behind” series to reel in already weakened brains.   

Lindsey built his interpretation on the identification of Israel with the “fig tree” and the coming of the Beast  (Antichrist) within one generation of its emergence (birth of a state). Since that birth occurred in 1948, and Lindsey designated one generation = 40 years (biblically) .  From this, he reckoned that the Antichrist would make his first public appearance in 1988(likely after recovering from a massive head wound of the type that killed JFK).  The Tribulation (the horrific 7-year period for his reign) would commence soon after since so many would now "worship the Beast". Everyone in the AC’s dominion would have to be marked with the magic letters ‘666’ which Lindsey surmised would be like an electronic code – similar to the product UPC codes triggered at checkout in a supermarket – to get prices. Without this special numerical code, no one would be able to buy or trade, or work – and hence couldn’t’ survive.

This tableaux also fit in with Lindsey’s other interpretations, including for the “ten heads” in Revelation – since at the time, the European Union featured ten members. Thus, the Antichrist was to arise directly out of what was the original Roman Empire, and also to be in charge of rebuilding the Temple in Jerusalem (atop one of Islam’s holiest sites). The price for this was for the "Son of Satan" to be worshipped by the Jews.


As any one familiar with this twaddle now knows, that timeline never materialized.  Never mind, though Lindsey's nonsense predictions have long been forgotten,  a good fiction idea (interweaving the Antichrist, Armageddon and Second Coming)  never dies. So no surprise the ensuing generation of bible punchers has run with it,   using similar statements that:

As of 1948, the Jews have a restored national identity helps to fulfill such biblical prophecies as Ezekiel 37 and Matthew 24

Which  totally makes  light of the mass suffering of the Jews, and the ongoing struggles they've endured just to survive day to day. And all this for what? To expeditiously fulfill “prophecies” for modern day Christian fundies - who have even admitted openly (i.e. on assorted 'Donahue' shows in the 90s) that  "The Jews have no chance to be saved unless they convert".   Even then the prophesies disclose only "144,000" will get through those pearly gates. Go figure! 


 The takeaway for me?  Many more Jews  ought to be railing against the Xtian fundie Repukes and Right extremists who back AIPAC,  and praising Ilhan Omar.  This is a time, it seems, when too many citizens have lost track of whom their real enemies are. 


See also:


by Jeffrey C. Isaac | March 11, 2019 - 5:30am |

And:


by William Boardman | March 10, 2019 - 5:52am |

And:


The Slandering of Ilhan Omar
Naomi LaChance's picture
Article Tools E-mail | Print Comments (2)

by Naomi LaChance | March 7, 2019 - 7:05am  

And:



This Jew Tells Speaker Pelosi: "You May Well Prove Ilhan Omar Correct"
Jeff Cohen's picture
Article Tools E-mail | Print Comments (38)



Monday, March 21, 2016

As Predicted - Hillary Panders To AIPAC And Right Wing Warmonger Netanyahu

Hillary, our "quinoa and kale" candidate, bloviates and panders before AIPAC earlier today.

What is a panderer and can you trust him or her? A political panderer is one who will say anything to any specific audience in order to try to grab its support and votes. It helps mightily as well, if the particular pandering person believes the message being reeled off. In the case of her AIPAC speech, Hillary Clinton - an inveterate war hawk - meant every word. Strangely,  her groupies, especially blacks, seem unwilling to process this dimension, but will if she gets us into a new war (and has to do massive social budget cuts to pay for it). She unashamedly backs AIPAC's Israeli nationalist agenda and even supports the warmonger Bibi Netanyahu who has a thing about taking out Iran.

At least Bernie, kudos and props to him, nailed it by refusing to appear at this right wing Israeli ass kissing fest, despite being the only Jewish candidate. As he related to Chris Hayes, on his 'All In' show earlier tonight, he refuses to kowtow to Israeli nationalists (at the expense of Palestinians)  and the likes of Netanyahu who he described as a "right winger".

Recall that a year ago Netanyahu delivered an hysterical performance on Capitol Hill.  At the invitation of the Repukes, and with fire-breathing rhetoric, "Bibi" blasted any deal apart from total Iranian nuclear disarmament and - effectively -  demanded the only alternative had to be war.

Philip Stephens  in a Financial Times article on Mar. 5, 2015  ('The Answer for Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu Is War Against Iran')  highlighted the total awkward impropriety of it all, in the form of traducing Obama with the Republicans. Of course, the Repugs would lap it up as they're always looking for wars as a means to ramp up deficits to decrease social spending.

What was most puzzling was how this unhinged Irsraeli jackass - who more and more resembles the 'boy who cried 'Wolf!' -  has any creds left  when the EU and most European states "shut him out" (according to Stephens) long ago. His rants became so predictable and the over the top rhetoric so absurd that they basically tuned him out. But not the warmongering Neocons in the U.S.

And as far as trying to upstage Obama, all that really happened is that it backfired in the minds of most sensible citizens. Because no matter the excuse, nobody one- ups the President in terms of attending a speech that he never sanctioned, but which a troll Reepo congress did - just to get back at him for his executive orders on immigration.

Stephens also observed that Israel's own security and political establishment - including former generals and other officials- had been critical of the speech and believed its only effect to be "a clear and present danger to Israel".

While most rational people in the world of realpolitik understand that the only chance to curb Iran is the one now being followed by Obama, the irrational warmongers in Israel and the U.S. demand all out attacks a la Netanyahu. It seems two major conflicts in the last 14 years  aren't enough - they want the whole enchilada. One wonders where they will get the money to pay for such intervention, especially as none of them (including Hillary) want to raise taxes on the Middle class.

My fear is that neocon war hawk Hillary is also itching for a chance to show she's her own "boss" - and can run with the males - so she may well overturn the Iranian initiatives set in motion by Obama (who she professes to endorse and "follow") by helping Netanyahu launch a war against Iran as one of her first acts as President. I could be wrong, but her moves in Libya, and later the Ukraine (to help topple Viktor Yanukovich) are not designed to inspire confidence.

Predictably,  Clinton blasted her principled opponent Bernie, the only presidential candidate to turn down the invitation to speak at the AIPAC conference, for promising to be neutral on Israel-Palestine. Sanders's'  is the correct stance, when you subtract all the hysteria and the only chance for real peace in the Middle East.  Sanders said he would pursue a “level playing field” in negotiations, something Clinton insisted she would never imagine doing.  The question is why not?

Is she a paid representative of the AIPAC lobby? Or is she in Bibi's pocket as a fellow war monger? Do her delirious supporters pay attention to any of this? Or are their heads so far up their fantasy land asses - to try and protect against "the Donald" -  they don't even care?

Thankfully, I am not a lone voice in the wilderness. Numerous progressive organizations and Palestinian leaders publicly condemned Clinton for her profusely pro-Israel remarks. For her shameless pandering. According to one observer:

"The speech that Hillary Clinton gave to AIPAC took pandering to a new level,”

As he continued, quoted in a salon.com piece:

Clinton promised to never be neutral and yet most Americans consistently express that they want the United States to be even-handed between Israel and the Palestinians. When one looks at public opinion among Democrats alone, this sentiment is even stronger and sympathy for Palestinians is even higher. This is especially true in the progressive base of the Democratic party — indeed the future of the party — made up of youth and minorities.”

Meanwhile, the social justice group Jewish Voice for Peace, or JVP, which is very critical of the Israeli government and its oppression of the Palestinians, blasted Clinton for her remarks. Rebecca Vilkomerson, the executive director of JVP, said in a statement that the discussion at AIPAC “relies on racist and Islamophobic tropes to justify unquestioning support for Israel.”

She went on to say:

"From Democrats to Republicans, the message is the same: more arms for Israel, a stronger relationship between Israel and the U.S., no mention of Palestinian rights, and no recognition of the impossible contradiction of being both democratic and Jewish when the state is predicated on maintaining systems of unequal rights and rule by military occupation,”

I am not certain, but I think Hillary may have just cremated her last chance to get Sanders's' supporters onto her bandwagon if and when she gets the Dem nomination. They have been enraged enough at the rigging of the primaries by the superdelegates but this AIPAC farce may be the last straw.

See also:
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/john-grant/66533/hillary-clinton-backed-the-coup-shine-the-light-of-truth-on-poor-honduras

And:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/robert-parry/66577/the-clinton-trump-aipac-pander-off