General Antisemitism

CiF “Israel lobby controls U.S. foreign policy” comment of the day

Kieron Monk’s CiF post, “Let Palestinian Police control Area C“, elicited this comment:

As someone who’s a member of the “global team of internet hasbara writers”, and as someone who also is part of a lobby who undermines democracy in America, I have to say to John and Stephen (sorry, I mean, JRKidd), damn…you really saw through me.  Unlike the rest of the great unwashed, you didn’t fall prey to our malevolent designs.  No, you’re too sophisticated for that.  And, you’re brave, oh so brave, to confront such a large community (2/10 of 1% of the world’s population)  – one which exercises so much control over the world.  I gotta admit, you exposed us for who we really are.

24 replies »

  1. Adam:

    What exactly is wrong with this comment ?

    Perhaps you can explain what the Likud policy is regarding the West Bank ? I have been asking that question for over 30 years and have never received a response. In the absence of any declared policy don’t be surprised at the growing number of references to “facts on the ground”.

    Have you ever heard of AIPAC ? I think it would be accurate to call it the Israel Lobby. And like the oil lobby, the gun lobby, the bank lobby and the hotel lobby, it “undermines democracy for its own vested interests” – that’s its job.

  2. Might I add the following, which is to be found in comments on an article entitled “Why Barack Obama is looking good for a second term in 2012”. I was slightly surprised (silly me!) to see the usual extremism crop up here too.


    7 November 2010 1:06AM

    If Obama wins again, he can seriously tackle Israel. If he does, I predict that Iran will be welcomed back into the fold and that Israel will be excluded. He will have nothing more to fear from the Israel lobby that controls most or all of US policies.”

  3. These creeps take the racist, apartheid position that it is “illegal” for Jews to go to live in Judea-Samaria, the heart of the ancient Jewish homeland, recognized as the Jewish National Home by the League of Nations in 1922. The UK was mandated by the League [Article 6 of the Mandate] to facilitate “close settlement by Jews on the land” in Israel. However, the UK violated its mandate and excluded Jewish refugees from the country, especially starting in 1939 and forbid Jews to buy real estate in most of the country starting in 1940

    As to Jerusalem, it has had an absolute Jewish majority since 1853. See link:
    Yet, Arab irregular forces started driving Jews out of vulnerable Jewish neighborhoods in December 1947 or November 30, 1947, in the early morning after the UN general assembly partition recommendation. Why should an Arab state have any part of Jerusalem??

  4. MTC, are you serious? Are you truly saying you don’t get what’s wrong with accusing Israel of ethnic cleansing, and of accusing the organized Jewish community of undermining U.S. democracy? Truly, you’re serious!? If you honestly aren’t offended by those who advance the lethal historical calumny that Jews control Washington, then you’re not simply a left-wing critic of this site. You represent everything we’re fighting against.

  5. Adam:
    Your problem is that you are selective in your criticism. JRDKidd may be an idiot but he does raise a few very pertinent points, which you choose to ignore (as usual) and I don’t – specifically, his first paragraph. So please answer my question: what is the Likud policy regarding the West Bank?

  6. Adam:

    Again you ignore my point totally. I repeat – my comments referred to the first paragraph in that CiF comment. You posted the entire comment here so don’t complain when readers choose to discuss the parts of it that interest them, even though they may be of secondary interest to you.

    So what is the policy of the current Israeli govt re settlements vs a Palestinian State, i.e. Likud / Shas / Liberman ? Is JRDKidd’s assessment (in the 1st paragraph) wrong ?

  7. MindTheCrap’s request, though pertinent, is a little ingenuous. If one were to rely on the declared Likud plaform presented to the electorate last year( which was probably read by dedicated party hacks only), one might conclude something akin to what JRDKidd, the offending poster wrote.

    However, as all of us know, politicians in all countries rarely keep their word and are subject to bouts of having to respond to events, political pressures and the like. Thus, Binyamin Netanyahu can campaign on a platform which denies a Palestinian State in February 2009 and still come to publically endorse that idea a few months after being elected. His Party can demand fewer PA policemen but his government is very happy that the PA police, strengthened in numbers and in ability by Gen. Dayton,
    works in ever closer cooperation with the IDF in controlling elements hostile to both Israel and the PA.

    Neither the commenter Kidd nor MTC should ignore these developments.

  8. Abtalyon:
    I’m not ignoring anything, and I usually don’t, as you well know from my many comments on CiF. However Kidd makes some pertinent points at the start of his comment, before he descends into the “ethnic cleansing” morass. I think that this initial part of his comment accurately reflects the way many people in the West perceive the current situation and it is worth discussing.

  9. MTC

    “the first paragraph”

    Liar. Your first words on this thread were, “What exactly is wrong with this comment ?”

    Even the first paragraph (and your twisted defense of it) is wrong, asserting the Israeli government needs to “stop building illegal settlements.”

    As you well know, Israeli administrations since since Oslo — including two Netanahu administrations — have authorised few (if any) new settlements. This gives the administration greater authority to easily remove settlements if and when Israel concludes the Palestinians sincerely resigned to ending belligerency permanently. It is a clear indication that all Israeli administrations take peace seriously.

    Since Taba, the outlines of peace have been known, and everyone (Palestinian negotiators, USA, EU) knows full well the largest settlements will be swapped for Israeli land. There is absolutely no reason why Israel should hesitate to increase density in the settlements understood to become part of Israel.

  10. GentleZionist:

    You only prove that you totally misunderstood everything I said, which specifically referred to “facts on the ground” and not government policy. You can’t have it both ways: if the govt has a “policy” as you describe then it would stop the settlement expansion outside the large blocs. But it doesn’t, so don’t be surprised if a lot of people reach the obvious conclusion.

  11. MTC:

    “Have you ever heard of AIPAC ? I think it would be accurate to call it the Israel Lobby. And like the oil lobby, the gun lobby, the bank lobby and the hotel lobby, it “undermines democracy for its own vested interests” – that’s its job.”

    You missed a big lobby there mate.

    The Arab Lobby.

    was it accidental?

  12. Itzik:

    BTW – you should go back and look at the comments that I posted on CiF on the threads that dealt with the Channel 4 show on the Jewish Lobby in Britain.

  13. How about a discussion about moderation on CiFwatch ? I have often criticised the moderators at CiF for protecting their star writer, Seth Friedman, against criticism. Is the same happening here ?

  14. MindTheCrap

    “You can’t have it both ways: if the govt has a “policy” as you describe then it would stop the settlement expansion outside the large blocs.”

    Actually, the Arab side has it both ways all the time, experts at saying one thing and doing another; retracting recognition and other commitments; war by attrition even after armistice or treaty; saying one thing in English and another in Arabic; promsing to stop terrorism yet secretly funding it; etc.

    You seem to want Israel to always be sincere, clear, and perfect. However:
    1. By being clear while the Arabs are ambiguous, puts Israel at risk.
    2. Without pressure, the Palestinians make no concessions.
    3. Stopping all settlement actvity is a concession which would just be pocketed by the Palestinians, and which would encourage them to intransigeance, waiting for the USA/EU to force Israel to further concessions.
    4. Imposing high standards on Israel only (clear, sincere, concessions, never aggressive policies) and not on the MUslim world could be considered anti-Semitism.

    If the whole planet — particularly the Arab world — uses ambiguity to advance their interests, why shouldn’t Israel? It would seem you want Israel to fight for survivial not only with one hand tied behind its back, but with two tied.

    And in practise it’s not feasible. Removing the Sinai and Gaza settleents were wrenching internal battles. There is no reason why Israel should srangle itself in such an internal battle, until the Palestinians get serious about peace, including renouncing violence, recognising the Jewish state, renouncing RoR, considering land swaps, and may even allowing Jews in a Palestinian state. So long as the Palestinian leadership categorically reject every one of these, the Israeli public will not support settement withdrawal.

  15. GentileZionist:

    “If the whole planet — particularly the Arab world — uses ambiguity to advance their interests, why shouldn’t Israel?”

    So the govt has a WB policy but has decided to be deliberately ambiguous ? And to do so it actually does things to promote its ambiguity policy that conflict with its WB policy, even though it is acting against the country’s interests.

    Have I understood the situation correctly ?

  16. MindTheCrap:

    If you’re looking for an actual Netanyahu government “policy” as against a declared one, you won’t find it, except in its will to survive to the next Knesset recess. At the moment, that aim can only be attained by all the coalition parties voting for the budget and its accompaniments. Until then, don’t expect any significant developments in foreign affairs as any move towards reopening negotiations with the PA will upset the more right-wing government parties. Once the budget is in the bag, Netanyahu has less need for reliance on his coalition partners, will have more room for manoeuvre and may be more flexible concerning Obama’s recent offer of benefits for reinstating the freeze on settlements. Even so, his inbuilt caution will prevent him from making any great leap forward.