Sunday, December 25, 2011

Is mainstream pundits' increasing criticism of Israel an indication that U.S. ruling class is now positioning itself to throw Zionists under the bus?

Introduction by Chris Moore:

In the following article from, Jordan Michael Smith adds up the ever-growing number of mainstream sources who are increasingly critical of Israel, and concludes that "slowly but unmistakably, space is opening up among the commentariat for new, critical ideas about Israel and its relationship to the United States."

With the Israel lobby and the larger Zionist (Judeo-supremacist) agenda at the nexus of the entire left-right Mideast war enterprise, the trend has been evident for quite some time, as Israel has gotten more and more naked in its fascism, and as the belligerent Mideast wars have gone increasingly sour and turned into a U.S. quagmire and monetary black hole.

So now, is the ruling class chameleon slowly changing colors? Suddenly, is Israel, which has really been a Judeofascist entity from its very inception, no longer in fashion? Is it now de rigueur among certain liberal mainstream media pundits to finally notice what has been Israel's ongoing blatant fascism, and to actually write about it?

A couple observations on this phenomenon:

1) I think it's ironic that these weepy establishment liberals, who for decades have been educating and indoctrinating us as to what a righteous and deserving "victim" organized Jewry has always been, with poor little "David" Israel heroically standing firm against the Islamic "Goliath" as a metaphor for plucky Jewry in both its Levant and Diaspora incarnations (the latter heroically standing firm against the Christian "Goliath") poses as if it has just now discovered that Israeli Zionist Jewry is actually a self-serving, supremacist racket (but won't touch the equally self-serving and bigoted Diaspora Zionist Jewish racket, other than criticising it as "the Israel lobby").

2) It's also ironic that the equally phony American Judeo-Christian Zionists, who have always been rightfully suspicious of subversive and hostile liberal Diaspora Jewry, were so easily manipulated by the larger organized Jewish entity into becoming Israel's lackey and useful idiot, and in doing so made themselves the lackeys of the entirety of Jewry and its self-serving domestic political agenda, as epitomized by the (Jewish dominated) Wall Street and Federal Reserve bankster regimes, as well.

Of course, this was only possible because Judeo-Christian Zionists aren't authentic Christians at all, but rather insatiably greedy and materialistic, petite-Jewish, Judeofascist wannabes. A partnership with organized Jewry, they and their pseudo-conservative bankster/Wall Street wing imagined, was the key to world Empire and its attendant riches. If they had to bite their tongues and swallow their pride (and sell their souls) to Jewry to attain it, so be it. (It seems metaphysical satanism doesn't have to work too hard to "trick" these base, money-worshipping, materialistic types into betraying Christianity and Greco-Christian civilization into doing what apparently comes naturally.)

Of course, being the greedy, ham-handed and pig-headed entity that it is, rather than confess its Judeo-supremacist sins and betrayals, the GOP establishment is digging in its heels, doubling down on its Israel-first, wars-for-Zionism and Empire treachery, and still insisting Israel and America are joined at the hip.

And even though cracks are starting to show on the left half of the Washington establishment, the GOP wing is by and large still backed in this by the (neoliberal) mainstream of the Democratic Party.

Nonetheless, the tea leaves show that a populist, America-first pincer movement, with the Ron Paul and Tea Party brigades on the right, and an increasingly vocal, authentic liberal and civil-libertarian wing on the left, is starting to squeeze the the money-worshipping, Globalist/Zionist leviathan amalgamation. This trend is just showing up now in the growing anti-Israel sentiment, but the neocon and liberal fascist Washington establishment itself, which truly is tied at the waist to its pharisaic, Israeli Jewish Zionist partners in crime, will soon have its feet to the fire, as well.

When the time finally comes, good riddance to the lot.


The media consensus on Israel is collapsing

Across the political spectrum, once-taboo criticism is now common
( -- by Jordan Michael Smith --

With Hamas and Fatah meeting this week in Cairo, reconciliation between the rival Palestinian political parties is likely only a matter of time. Official U.S. policy holds that Hamas is only a terrorist entity, and any agreement between the two factions jeopardizes continued U.S. aid. There is reason to believe, however, that more flexible, productive positions will be expressed in the U.S. media. Slowly but unmistakably, space is opening up among the commentariat for new, critical ideas about Israel and its relationship to the United States.

Freedom of this sort was visible in the pages of the New York Times last week. Thomas Friedman, the paper’s foreign affairs columnist, wrote that American leaders were betraying the country by outsourcing their foreign policy to Israel. A standing ovation given to the Israeli prime minister by the U.S. Congress this year was “bought and paid for by the Israel lobby,” he wrote. Phrased bluntly as it was, Friedman’s sentence was startling. As the quintessential establishment columnist, Bill Clinton’s favorite pundit and a thrice Pulitzer Prize-winner, Friedman is often seen in the U.S. as authoritative on the Middle East and rivaled only perhaps by the Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg in the influence of his writing on popular discussion.

Not surprisingly, Friedman’s piece elicited furor from those policing the conversation about Israel. The Israeli ambassador, American Jewish Committee, Jerusalem Post and even members of Congress gang-swarmed Friedman, accusing him of anti-Semitism and hatred of Israel. It was not the first time in recent months Friedman has been critical of Israel policy. In September, he wrote of the Obama government that the “powerful pro-Israel lobby in an election season can force the administration to defend Israel at the U.N., even when it knows Israel is pursuing policies not in its own interest or America’s.” A more damning critique of Israel and the lobby would be difficult to make.

Even so, Friedman is not the only Times-man to let go the pro-Netanyahu line. Columnist Roger Cohen is even more critical of Israel than is Friedman, and like Friedman he is notable for being a liberal supporter of the Iraq War — not exactly a radical, in other words. Cohen now regularly writes about Israel’s “illiberalism,” says U.S. foreign policy has been “Likudnized,” and calls opposing Israeli oppression of the Palestinians the most important task currently facing diaspora Jews.

Cohen believes the new conversations he has contributed to represent “changes going on in the U.S. Jewish community,” he said in a phone interview. “Jewish identify in postwar America was built very much on the Holocaust and support for Israel, and for younger American Jews that may have less resonance. There may be a rethinking of that form of attachment to Israel.”

J Street, the organization devoted to lobbying for Israel from a liberal perspective, is both reflective of, and a stimulant to, a more balanced conversation about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Cohen says. If he is right, J Street is performing its job well. Public discussion about the Mideast conflict is still nowhere near evenhanded in the United States, but it is more so than it used to be.

Three academics, Tony Judt, Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, deserve a lot of credit for expanding the permissible. Whatever one thinks of their analyses or prescriptions, they endured opprobrium and ostracism, to state the obvious: The unconditional U.S.-Israeli relationship is good for neither the U.S. nor Israel. Walt has an important perch at Foreign Policy’s website, which he uses to regularly espouse his once-radical views on Israel.

Criticism of the special relationship, once rare, is now frequent. Newsweek/Daily Beast’s Andrew Sullivan has become a regular source of attacks on the unqualified U.S. support for Israeli policy. Time magazine’s Joe Klein has been similarly outspoken. “If you don’t think that the Israel Lobby has an enormous influence on the Congress, you’re deluding yourself,” he wrote recently.

Peter Beinart, also of Newsweek/Daily Beast, inspired headlines with his critique of the “Failure of the American Jewish Establishment.” He has a forthcoming book sure to get a lot of attention called “The Crisis of Zionism.” Former New York Observer writer Philip Weiss has created a one-stop shop for critics of Israel and U.S. policy. And, of course, Salon’s own Glenn Greenwald regularly questions the bipartisan consensus on Israel...MORE...LINK

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Does the Jewish Establishment get off this easy? Does a calculated flip-flop wash their hands of the mess that they have largely insisted on making? I think the Jewish community needs a very healthy dose of the social justice that they seem to enjoy doling out to others!