Self-serving, militant Jewish-American Zionists and their culture of authoritarianism have poisoned U.S. politics from left to right

Introduction by Chris Moore

An interesting battle recently took place on Mondoweiss between a periodic contributor to the blog, establishment, left liberal Democrat and Jewish-American liberal Zionist Prof. Jerome Slater, vs. much of the regular Mondoweiss commentariat, with Slater eventually criticizing the character of the Mondoweiss commenters as essentially anti-Semitic, and declaring that he would no longer be posting on Mondoweiss.

A generally anti-Zionist blog with both an authentically liberal and left-wing bent, Mondoweiss has posted quite a few articles lately sympathetic to the presidential run of staunchly anti-war Republican Ron Paul.

Typical of self-serving Jewish Zionists, who seek to force the national view of every issue through the political kaleidoscope of World War II and the Holocaust (while completely ignoring the events that led up to both, including Western Jewish banker-financed, Jewish Communist-perpetrated mass murder of anti-regime Christians and dissidents in the Soviet Union) Slater is apparently perturbed that Ron Paul enjoys not only support from the small government, anti-Empire, anti-Globalist, anti-totalitarian right (sneered at by neocons, neoliberals and left-liberals like Slater as the "isolationist" wing of conservatism), but he's particularly perturbed that Paul is getting a lot of traction amongst civil libertarians and anti-war advocates on the left, as well.

(Similar to the anti-war conservatives, these latter are fed up not only with the gratuitous violence of endless international wars, but the violence that they do to domestic tranquility and civil liberties, as well.)

What I find interesting about the conflict on Mondoweiss is the contrast between Slater's militant Jewish mindset, and the mindset of the authentic liberals and traditional American liberalism as epitomized by some of the Mondoweiss commentariat -- which goes to my premise that the ethno-religous doctrine, ideology and "nation" of Jewry is innately antagonistic and warlike, and carries a heavy bias in favor aggression and violence wherever it goes (for reasons having to do with a strategy of Jewish continuity through contrived polarization, and a modern, wealthy, Jewish "insiders" culture of greed that seeks profit off of war and government debt) as well as a bias in favor of Big Government, which Jewry essentially seeks to infiltrate, grow and then utilize as a bodyguard for its authoritarian rackets.

This should be contrasted with the generally peaceful ethos of Greco-Christian civilization and its manifestations on both the traditional Western left and right, which have a bias in favor of peace and prosperity for all, and seek to lead by upright example as opposed to government coercion and violence, and ideally only resort to violence in self defense -- all of which makes the nation of Jewry not only a poor fit with Western civilization, but a dangerous, subversive, hostile, and anathematic fifth column within.

Below, I have selected portions of Slater's polemics from both his original piece on Mondoweiss and his responses to critics in the comments section, followed by some of the better commentariat critiques of his Zionist outlook from both the Paulite perspective and the authentic and traditional American liberal perspective. -- C.M.

-----

From:
Ron Paul’s antiwar position is simpleminded
(Mondoweiss) -- by Jerome Slater --

...There's a fundamental problem with Paul's foreign policy positions. Yes, he opposed the war in Iraq, Israel's wars against the Palestinians, and any attack on Iran--excellent. Most liberals also did so. You didn't have to be a rightwing nut to do so. But it is not the case that an indiscriminate "antiwar" position is always the wisest and most moral posture. Other than fascists, everyone is "antiwar"--until, that is, they get down to cases. Here's a few:

WWII. Everyone thinks WWII was a just war. But since Paul, as Pollitt puts it, is against everything the U.S. government does, domestically or internationally, there is every reason to think he would have opposed FDR's decision that we had to join in the fight both for moral and strategic reasons.

Afghanistan after 9/11. Not quite as unanimous as in the case of WWII, an overwhelming majority of Americans (including me) thought that 9/11 made it was necessary to go after both the Taliban and, in particular, Osama bin Laden. Indeed, when you remember what the Taliban did to Afghanistan, there was also a moral case for doing so--though obviously we would not have gone to war in the absence of 9/11. Here I distinguish between the initial intervention and the endless war we are still mired in, the latter being both morally and strategically unwise and unnecessary. We should have gotten out within months of the initial attack.

Bosnia and Kosovo in the 1990s: a closer case, and strategically irrelevant. Still, I'm hardly alone in believing that it was a moral imperative--not to mention a general success--in saving the Muslims of Bosnia and Kosovo--yes, the Muslims, often overlooked--and getting rid of another monster, Milosevic.

The Gulf War against Saddam Hussein in the early 1990s, after he attacked Kuwait and there was every reason to believe Saudi Arabia, at the least, was next. The first George Bush did exactly the right thing: stopped the aggression, and ended the war when that had been accomplished. As a matter of fact, he stopped too soon, not because he didn't send troops into Baghdad and overthrow Saddam--that was the right decision--but by allowing Saddam to use his helicopters and his thugs to brutally crush the Iraqi resistance in the south that we had actively encouraged.

Libya: Still more controversial, but looking reasonably good. This one split both liberals and conservatives, I leaned towards thinking that Obama did the right thing for the right reasons.

Final comment: all wars cause civilian casualties, which by themselves is not enough to condemn them; it is ridiculous to argue that they must invariably be unjustified if you "ask the family of the victims what they think." No doubt the families of the Nazis or even just ordinary German soldiers killed in the war were despondent; where does that take you? Or, how about France in WWII? The noncombatant French casualties that were a consequence of the war to liberate them were orders of magnitude greater than all recent wars. Does anyone believe that the overwhelming majority of the people of France would have preferred a thousand year Reich?

There are two thousand years of serious religious and philosophical thought on the problem of war, when it is just and when it is unjust. Other than true pacifists-- of whom there are hardly any, and most of whom changed their minds when faced with Hitler--no one really believes that all wars are unjust. I can't go into all these issues here, but to examine this question fuly you need to ask if the overall war is justified, if every effort is made to minimize civilian casualties, if the people in the country suffering the casualties are nonetheless willing to accept them, and if there is every reason to believe the war saves far many more people than it kills. And there are many more criteria for thinking about this terribly serious issue than I've mentioned here...

Jerome Slater says:
January 6, 2012 at 5:53 pm

Bandolero, and others who have pointed out that Paul says he would have voted to go to war against Germany and Japan after they declared war on us, and supported the authorization to attack Afghanistan after 9/11.

Paul is a politician, running for office. Would you expect him to say he would have voted against a declaration of war on Germany and Japan, after they declared war on us? In fact, I believe him when he says he would have. But that isn’t the point. The point is that an isolationist Congress, then having a majority, tried to stop Roosevelt from aiding the victims of Nazi aggression, even if it meant, as it certainly appeared at the time, that Germany would have conquered all of Western Europe, including England. On the basis of Ron Paul’s philosophy, it is a reasonable inference that he would have supported that Congress.

9/11. Same point. Would you expect a politician to vote against the use of force against Afghanistan after 9/11? The test is not how you vote after we’ve been attacked, but what the consequences are of an indiscriminately isolationist position, before such attacks.

-----

Jerome Slater says:
January 6, 2012 at 6:08 pm

A general comment. A good deal of the commentary here, especially the most poorly reasoned and vituperative, essentially consists of this argument: all wars kill innocent people, therefore no war can be justified. The first part is factually correct–all wars do kill innocent peoples. The conclusion, however, does not follow, because many other matters must be considered, and many distinctions made. This is not “Slater’s position,” it is the outcome (as I have said) of two thousand years of moral thought by the world’s greatest religious and secular thinkers, to which I have made no additional contributions.

The beginning, the sine qua non, of intelligent thought is the ability to make relevant distinctions. Many of you don’t make the cut.

-----

Jerome Slater says:
January 6, 2012 at 7:14 pm

Donald: A legitimate question. Off the top of my head, I have two responses. The first is the one I’ve already given to Phil Weiss’s making of the same point that you, Greenwald, and others are also making: I have a different prediction than you folks on the consequences of his campaign: I think it is more likely that no one running for president, especially on the Republican side, will move towards Paul positions on war, even when they are legitimate (I also oppose an attack on Iran, aid to Israel, and others)–rather, it is more likely, in my view, that his foreign policy positions will be ignored, but that his domestic imbelicities will force Republican candidates who probably know better–Romney, and certainly Huntsman–to move to the right. Indeed, I shouldn’t call it a “prediction,” it has already happened.

The second point, and I haven’t articulated this even to myself until your question required me to do so, is that I don’t share the underlying premise of a lot of those in this discussion, including Greenwald, who I almost always admire: namely that the “prowar” disposition is so strong in this country that we need Ron Paul to make the counterarguments. Obama inherited the Afghan War and the Iraq War, and the bottom line is that he’s getting out, even though we will probably, in some sense, end up losing those wars– and I don’t detect vociferous opposition to that from any quarter–not even from most of the Republican candidates. And why not? Because the mood of the country is hardly prowar. You no longer get elected in this country by promising imperial ventures overseas.

Any good liberal can–and has–made the legitimate antiwar arguments, for example, against an attack on Iran, we don’t need an extremist and a crackpot to make them. In this connection, I will not resist adding that the steaming, vociferous, howling hatred of liberals of a lot of people on this site is just awful. Ironically, it is just like the Bolsheviks in Russia, and communist parties in Europe in the 1920s and 1930s: it wasn’t the rightwingers that they hated the most, it was the democratic socialists.

-----

Jerome Slater says:
January 8, 2012 at 12:21 pm

With this final remark, I am departing not only this thread, but Mondoweiss itself. Over the last few years Phil Weiss has published a number of my commentaries, and the pattern is invariable: when I write some very severe criticism of Israel, I am applauded, but whenever I write something that departs from the radical left, knee-jerk consensus on Mondoweiss, I am subject to a torrent of abuse, junior high school sarcasm, sputtering hatred, and so on. Not to mention the most ludicrous charge of them all–that I’m an apologist for Israel, or that I think that anyone who criticizes Israel, or me personally, is an anti-Semite.

Now, it is true that sometimes I have lost my temper, and responded with some acerbity. I plead guilty, but offer in mitigation the fact that I’m only human, that when I’m subject to attacks that reveal that little or nothing of my argument has been understood, and that this lack of comprehension is accompanied by insults, sometimes my combative instincts take over and I can’t resist striking back.

Because I’ve finally had it, and knew that this would be my last appearance, in this instance I decided to go out with a bang, not only knowing full well what the response would be, but actually anticipating with some perverse glee watching the wolf pack go into a frenzy. Here I am referring particularly to my warning against entering the approaching brain-free zone, which I deliberately inserted between comments by some of the worst offenders, American, Mooser, and Keith.

My final criticism of Mondoweiss in the one I regard as by far the most important. For a number of years Phil Weiss has performed an invaluable service, providing information about Israel’s policies and a platform for serious criticism of them. Even after other blogs along the same lines began to appear, Mondoweiss remained the most important, the most often quoted and, I believe, the most widely read.

However, in the last year the flaws in Mondoweiss have become more intrusive. I refer partly to the excessively one-sided and sometimes analytically unsophisticated nature of some of its postings. The more important problem, though, is the disastrous quality of most of the regular commenters–with honorable exceptions, of course, including several on this particular thread.

Why “disastrous?” There is no serious prospect of any change in Israeli policies, or of US support of them, unless the American Jewish community can finally grasp that those policies are irrational, self-defeating, dangerous, and immoral. Without the support of the Jewish community, there is no chance that any US government will adopt the strong measures that are the only chance of reversing Israel’s course: BDS, and making US aid conditional on such reversals.

Therefore, the most important audience for Mondoweiss and other blogs, including mine, is the American Jewish community. How many American Jews who might be open to reasoned criticism of Israel are likely to be convinced by the hysterical, hate-filled, ignorant, and imbalanced denunciations that now characterize far too many of the regular Mondoweiss participants, especially in their total rejections of any form of Zionism, no matter how self-critical and moderate, and the numerous–yes, numerous–attacks that verge on, or unmistakably go over, the red line of anti-Semitism.

-------------------------

CloakAndDagger says:

...I am sure that you also agreed with Madeleine Albright when she said killing half a million Iraqi children was well worth it. Would you be so cavalier if they were your children?

Must be nice to sit behind the shield of academia and make pronouncements on the lives of others.

There is only one kind of war that is justified – and that is a war of defense. All other wars are rackets for profit, as General Smedley Butler famously said – or maybe he was a fool too?

People like you are the most despicable arm-chair warriors on this planet. You want to attack Iran? Here’s a gun and a parachute. We’ll let them know you are coming.

-----

JewishAnarchist says:

This may be the first neo[liberal/conservative] post I have ever seen on this website. To describe the belief that killing innocent people is never justified as “ridiculous” is… well… slightly to the right of John McCain.

-----

Dan Crowther says:

If anyone needed any further proof of the irrelevance of the american liberal class, look no further than this essay

Leaving aside the fallacious arguments about Afghanistan ( the war actually started years before with the Clinton Sanctions) and Bosnia/Kosovo (amazing that slater even tries to make the “humanitarian”argument in light of what has happened there since, and the documentary record that says the radical opposite about Clinton and NATO’s intentions) – lets focus on what I think is the most disgusting part of this essay: This guy has never in his life been anywhere near a US military uniform. Arm Chair Warrior if there ever was one. Lets improve humanitarian conditions by bombing people. Great.

So, people need to ask themselves a very important question: What is worse, simple minded fools who are anti-war, or smart liberals who intellectualize death and destruction on behalf of the state that serves their interests so well? To ask the question is to answer it.

-----

Keith says:

DAN CROWTHER- “If anyone needed any further proof of the irrelevance of the american liberal class, look no further than this essay”

Sad, but true. Liberals are noted for a propensity to piss and moan about systemic injustice, while simultaneously defending the very system which inevitably results in these injustices. Liberals are, after all, an essential part of the system...

Based upon some additional comments which have been posted, I think it appropriate to add that in this post Professor Slater demonstrates his contempt for international law. Legally (for what that is worth nowadays), countries are prohibited from attacking another country for “humanitarian” reasons, military actions restricted to bona fide defense against attack. All US military interventions after World War II have been illegal, coerced UN acquiescence notwithstanding. To even for a moment attempt to justify imperial assaults on relatively defenseless countries and peoples is morally repugnant. And to see Professor Slater lower himself to the role of apologist for imperial warmongering saddens me.

-----

Dan Crowther says:

I too have deep reservations about Paul, but this non-stop derision from liberals tells us a lot more about them than it does Paul.

(1) it tells us is that the “Liberal Class” absolutely LOVES state power. They have their own view of what the state “should do” – but lets admit that this is arbitrary, and of course, serves their interests. Where “libertarians” like Paul pray at the altar of the “market” – the “liberal class” prays at the altar of the state. It really is a “belief” in both instances.

(2) It tells us, or rather illustrates, why the “liberal class” hasn’t got a serious anti-war, anti-imperialism, pro-civil liberties candidate – They support the same policies as the Right, but want to mask aggression with nonsensical terms like “humanitarian interventions” (where we bomb the shit out of people)

(3) It tells us that the “liberal class” really is removed from the rest of society, and should no longer be looked to by anyone wishing to improve their condition. Slater talks of an “increasingly right wing country” and yet doesn’t take any responsibility for this fact (if its true) ; If I were a 50 year “liberal” writer/activist looking around at the country, I would say, “wow, I suck – I/We have effected very little, and in a lot of cases, have helped make things worse” — But Slater doesn’t want to go there, he doesnt want to talk about the Liberal Class that supported Civil Rights, but went silent when King and others started agitating on class lines, Slater doesn’t want to talk about the AFL-CIO and their record of selling out working people time and again, he doesnt want to talk about how the democratic party became another chapter of the “Chicago Boys” fraternity, he doesnt want to talk about the left’s obsession with identity politics and “representation” rather than class issues and he doesnt want to talk about publicly subsidized college professors and their distinct role in “educating” the future neo-liberals of the world in a pure “fee for service” environment where if the kid pays, he graduates.

There is a tremendous amount wrong in this country, and I agree that Paul would not solve many of the problems, and in some instances make them worse, but whatever else is true, it is clear that the “liberal class” no longer has anything to offer working class americans

-----

Dan Crowther says:

My definition of the “liberal class” is the non working class element of the left. As Ive said before, its the members of the left not there because of economic necessity.

We used to have real working class organizations and parties in this country, but after woodrow wilson, the second world war and the continued red scares, the real working class element got rolled up into a monolithic “left” lead by the “liberal class” – professional advocates, as it were.

The “liberal class” serves a few functions – (1) it presents a “serious” face for the “left” in the establishment (2) it sets the boundaries for “seriousness” on the left – go any further left than us, your a wacko etc (3) it works to keep the democratic party “the only game in town” for working class people, and thus perpetuates the two party system that serves them so so well.

It is part of the “specialized class” that helps with the “manufacture of consent” as the great “liberal” Walter Lippman put it…..

-----

Danaa says:

Jerome, you keep bringing up this anti-semitism nonsense, and just the way you do it – high handedly, without evincing the slightest doubt that Jews deserve a special class of anti-bigotry label, and slinging that for the merest deviation from the gospel on the Holocaust, makes me understand why some people may not like some Jewish people all that much. With emphasis on “some” though I am sure “some” will choose to ignore that.

Once again, there is every reason in the world to examine every group’s actions and inactions in the world at any time. that’s History, no?. And Hitler’s Germany should be no exception. And I’d make the same argument about Pol Pot’s Cambodia – which of course hardly ever gets examined – as if those 1 Million were inconsequential to merit revisiting their tragedy.. Those victims never even got the post cambodian Holocaust consolation of having thousands of people wail at the world’s inaction (just a few 10′s, that’s all I saw complaining about that).

I think that it should be unacceptable for anyone to fling accusations of anti-semitism around unless they have solid reason, such as being outright persecuted. And you Jerry, are not persecuted. You are a member of a highly privileged class which shuts down any criticism of its actions or pronouncements by hiding behind imaginary victimhood. No one is less of a victim in America right now than the Jewish American citizens. And for a member of the group that is eagerly calling for the bombardment into oblivion of Iran, and moving heaven and earth to do just that, even if you yourself don’t ‘support” it, is really a conflict of interest to even bring up the concept of “Just war”. It is a premise full of pitfalls, because, last I saw, to everyone whoever instigated a war, it was “Just”. To the israelis the war of conquest in 1967 was Just. To the Republican jewish people destroying Iraq was “Just”. To you, bombing Serbia was “Just”. And maybe 10,000-30,000 victims in Libya is “Just” OK because it’s minimal compared to what could have been.

-----
kalithea says:

...I’d like to believe that Slater and Pollitt are just ignorant, but their credentials prove that it’s not ignorance that drives them to discredit Paul this way. I’m sure they’ve done their research on Paul so then it’s mostly BIAS and PARANOIA pushing their LIES.

First of all, if there’s one thing I agree with Ron Paul on it’s that MOST WARS CAN BE AVOIDED and were provoked by stupidity and ignorance, (such as the ignorance displayed against Ron Paul.

LIE NUMBER ONE: Ron Paul would vote against entering WWII

Ron Paul, stated in an interview he did for 20/20 that he would vote for defending the nation against the attack on Pearl Harbour. I’ll list all links separately.

Now here’s my thought and I believe Ron Paul thinks this way. Germany was decimated and humiliated after WWI. The post WWI period represented an OPPORTUNITY to avoid WWII, an opportunity that no one seized and led to tragic escalation and circumstances, but that can be seized in the present, because if we learn from the mistakes of the past wars CAN BE avoided.

After WWI Germany was forced to give up territory and severe restrictions and financial reparations were imposed that led to hardship for the German people who were already in dire straits after the war, great resentment and thus the rise of Hitler.

Since the late 1800s, Japan’s economy was becoming more industrialized, and its industry depended on imports of raw materials. FDR imposed crippling sanctions on imports into Japan because of Japan’s expansion into Manchuria to establish a buffer zone against Russian expansion in the area. Later, FDR created an oil embargo against Japan that further crippled its industry and which became the last straw.

So you see, misguided policy leads to war.

Lie No. 2 – Ron Paul was against War in Afghanistan.

Ron Paul VOTED for the Resolution to invade Afghanistan, BUT was against the protracted war and empire building still going on. I have heard him state time and time again that U.S. misguided policy i.e. blind support for Israel to the detriment of Palestinians and U.S. bases in Saudi Arabia and an expanding U.S. presence on Muslim soil led to 9/11 AND I AGREE 200%! The aftermath of 9/11 could have been handled differently but became a launching pad for 2 Wars and the diminishment of Constitutional freedoms as well as WAR CRIMES.

And regarding the invasion of Serbia, that war would have been moot and avoided had it not been for the grand appeasement of a WAR CRIMINAL, Slobodan Milosevic, with the Dayton Accords leaving Muslims high and dry under the Law!!! The image of Christopher and Holbrooke shaking hands with a WAR CRIMINAL makes my stomach churn. Milosevic had already committed genocide and ethnic cleansing! There is such a thing as INTERNATIONAL LAW and an International Criminal Court! Ooops! but the U.S. doesn’t recognize its authority! The U.S. needs to stop INTERFEREING with International LAW.

This is why also Palestinians are being subjected to repetitive war crimes and crimes against humanity and no one is enforcing INTERNATIONAL LAW and eventually there will be WAR over this and everyone will whine, rant and regret!

If the U.S. cannot be a wise, impartial arbitrator, or world police, THEN STAY THE HELL OUT OF OTHER PEOPLE’S BUSINESS. Stop meddling and interfering, and stop vetoing the enforcement of International Law!

Other lies in Pollitt’s article relate to the fear that Ron Paul will end Social Security and Medicare. Ron Paul is on video stating that he will cut bureaucracy and overseas funding first and will cut defense spending significantly before tampering with Social Security and Medicare. He always stated that there will be responsible phasing out of certain programs for FUTURE generations that will COINCIDE with the phasing out of INCOME TAX and significant tax reform.

The issue of Ron Paul deconstructing or reversing the Civil Rights Act is PURE HYSTERIA-DRIVEN BULLSHIT.

Also Ron Paul’s personal views on abortion are not always reflected in his voting record. People forget that he wants this issue to be left up to each state as with gay marriage and NOT be matters under Federal jurisdiction.

So there’s a lot of SPIN and bullshit going on here, but most of it is inspired by BIAS and ulterior motives which I KNOW for a fact we will have the opportunity to discuss, and let me tell you that destroying a man’s career and opportunity to fulfill his aspirations over UNFOUNDED SUSPICIONS and conspiracy theories is malicious to the 9th degree and should be considered SLANDER.

There are ULTERIOR motives behind Slater’s and Pollit’s articles and eventually they’ll glare through the landfill bullshit trying to bury Ron Paul! Hint: Let’s just say they’re making the Lobby’s and ADL’s life a whole lot easier these days, because these two have NOTHING on Ron Paul, merely suspicion, so publicly they can’t denounce him, but Slater and Pollit and others are soldiering on with these common suspicions clearly inspiring them to a whole lot of vindictive penmanship and incitement of mass hysteria against Ron Paul. And mass hysteria against him is exactly what the Lobby and ADL dream of.

And so my support of him is yet more reinforced.

-----

kalithea says:

I’m going to start posting the links to support my post above, but let me begin by detoxing the ambiance with a reality check here, because Slater’s article is indeed toxic material against Ron Paul because it tries to tear down the singular issue that everyone finds redeeming about him including rabid, Ron Paul-hating Progressives, so as to diminish and arrest his growing popularity with the Left and in essence DIVIDE us EVEN on THIS aspect of Ron Paul’s platform.

So let me attempt to pull everyone back to the “honorable” conviction that united us in regards to Ron Paul before Slater injected his poison pen. Please start by watching the gut-wrenching video that follows to regain perspective on the issue of War.

By the way, I agree with Ron Paul on the fact that it’s hard to make a moral justification for war even when war becomes the only necessary option, because in history as I explained above regarding WWII, there’s always a window of opportunity to avoid escalating factors that lead to war and unfortunate justifications for war by using wisdom while applying justice on others and exposing injustices as they occur and applying the Law before it’s too late. War is the consequence of sins of commission and omission.

War should be the last resort after exhausting every option…in the UNIVERSE!!! So here goes: WAR, what is it good for? NOTHING! Because we need to start with a good dose of reality, i.e. the antidote .: (Please keep in mind that the Obama we see at the beginning of the video was “candidate” Obama not to be confused with the stranger who is President today.)

link to youtube.com

-----

kalithea says:

But the fact is that you’re using the very few, perhaps, one justified war in history to DISCREDIT Ron Paul’s policy on war, and you’re even dishonest by stating that Ron Paul wouldn’t send the country into WWII after Pearl Harbor or you’re making it appear that way, when he states he would do so on tape (see link). It’s one thing to argue the “morality” of any war as Ron Paul has every right to do and quite another to fudge the truth and imply that one who engages in this argument would not act if his country were attacked. Here is where I really object and question your motives.

(1.16 Ron Paul states entering WWII justified)

link to youtube.com

------

American says:

Jerry……let’s review your swan song here for the sake of honesty

You say you are subject to a torrent of abuse, junior high school sarcasm, sputtering hatred, and so on. When in reality every comment you make to some rebuttal is that anyone who doesn’t agree with you is stupid and/or anti semites.

And while you admit to enjoying deliberately insulting and baiting commenters here, you whine about being attacked back, while excusing your own attacks as “being just human”.

How you think this is going to get you any respectful hearing here is beyond me.

Then you attempt to censor Mondo and try to intimidate Phil by implying the site is full anti semites. If I had a nickle for every time I’ve seen a zionist try that trick with some successful and well regarded Israel/I/P site I could make Phil rich and Mondo would never have to fund raise again.

And the sending of a comment to 10 of your friends who all agreed with you?…seen that ploy before too…it was tried at TWN, at WarinContext, at Col. Lang’s, at Walts, and quite a few others. It doesn’t work .

Then you resort to the old threat of don’t piss off the Jews on liberal zionism or policy on Israel will never change cause ‘only’ the Jews can change it..same argument you made on not pressuring the Dems on Israel or Repubs will win and poor Americans will starve. Wish I had a nickle for every time I’ve seen that one too.

Then you take some theory like Just War and try to use it to attack something or someone, Paul in this case. You’ve done this with other theories….tried to fit them to your personal views and objectives under some pseudo intellectual guise.

Finally as always, you settle on anti semitism as the reason you get called out on “liberal’ zionism. The real reason you get called on your zionism is because you are dishonest and because your zionism is one of superiority and entitlement….your liberal zionisim is the typical “cry and shoot” kind.

Evidently you are incapable of understanding or admitting the original wrongs of zionism in establishing Israel in Palestine on another’s land. You continue to justify it by Jewish victimhood entitlement and have even said the Jews welfare in taking Palestine for Israel was “the Greater Good” of the choice.

I am really curious what you think you accomplish by crying over what Israel does to Palestine without stepping up and saying…’it was wrong to begin with’ and Jews weren’t entitled by the holocaust or anything else to take another land and homes.

The fact that you don’t believe that, that you do really believe the Jews were and are entitled to usurp another people rights, people who had done nothing to them, is why no one respects your liberal zionist claim or whine to be given credit for crying over the Palestines. And this attitude combined with your belief that you (and Jews) are disliked because of being Jewish instead of being disliked for what you or they might be doing, or your attitudes towards others–as you show so well here– makes it impossible to have a honest conversation with you.

Instead of (pretending) to worry about the likes of us chasing off Jews who could be turned to “liberal zionism” you should be worrying about the view you give us and the rest of the world about “all’ of zionism…which is that there is no difference in the ‘basic’ belief of zionist and liberal zionist that Jews and Israel come ahead of everyone and everything else. How you think anyone can respect or cozy up to a belief like that, or to a person who holds it,or see any credibility in it or them is again, beyond me.

The day you can say that No, the Jews and zionism did not have a right to take the land and homes of people for themselves…that there was no ‘Great Good’ in one poeple stealing from and denying the rights of other people who had never done anything to the Jews..then I will listen to you….. but I’m not holding my breath.