Israel's recent election was a clarifying moment. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's appeal to Israelis' worst racist instincts worked. Between Netanyahu's declarations during the last week on the campaign trail that he has no interest in a peace agreement with Palestinians, and his horror at the act of Palestinian citizens of Israel voting, his political platform could not be more clear: It is anti-peace and based on Jewish nationalism at the expense of Palestinian citizens of Israel.
Strange that the author does not mention the billions in aid and support that Israeli and its military receive from the US. The fastest way to bring "outside" pressure to bear on Israel would be to stop the money and arms.
Knowing that our useless US Congress will never consider such actions, the best hope for any kind of peace and justice is the BDS movement.
Also, the author uses the word "Jew" or "Jewish" several times when she should use the term "zionist."
Obama does have a unique opportunity to reset the landscape in the Middle East, and thus begin to give the US some credibility in the region. Winning over some hearts and minds over there, could well be a boon for our future national security. Of course, there are a couple of reasons the chance of this happening are slim to none.
First, you have the MIC and their water-carriers who would fight and undermine this at all costs. Secondly, Obama would need massive popular support for such an undertaking. We know, however, where the Republican rank and file stand on this. No support there; even from so called libertarians. We also know that courage, conviction, and courage of convictions are antithetical to today's Democratic Party and modern liberalism/liberals.
If/Once this window of opportunity is lost, you can forget it. Any presidential candidate, from any party, inclined to go out on the limb with the notion of reigning in Israel will be committing political suicide, or worse. Even remotely insinuating that our "carte blanche" support for anything and everything the Israeli government does needs a sober reevaluation is enough to bring out AIPAC's dog whistles (i.e. Jim Webb).
I usually agree with your posts on the topic of Israel but I think the article is well written and found the author's use of the terms "Jewish" and "Jew" appropriate. She is not conflating Jews with Israel or support for Israel.
She also mentions U.S. military/economic aid in her closing paragraph.
I do not find her use of those terms to be appropriate in all cases. Here is one example.
It is anti-peace and based on Jewish nationalism at the expense of Palestinian citizens of Israel.
The word zionist is the far better choice in this sentence because she is discussing Israeli politics. The the terms "Jew" and "Jewish" refer either to people who adhere to a certain faith or to those who identify themselves as belonging to a certain ethnicity. The correct term for political behavior is "zionist."
Yes, the author does mention "U.S. economic military or economic aid (sic)" in her final paragraph but (a) she fails to describe the enormous extent of such aid and (b) she subordinates it behind other paths of action which would be less effective.
You've presented a reasoned defense of your argument, supported by examples, but this is the internet, so instead of saying you've made a good case, I'll employ the standard internet defense:
spotlessmcpartlandattax, you moron, YOU'RE WRONG!!!
You couldn't be more wrong if there were a wrongness contest and the winner had your baby!!! Because people like you breeding is WRONG!!!
Any U.S. Congressperson who says anything adverse about Israel or who votes against the $$ is out of office at the next election, having a well funded primary opponent. Cases in point are former Sens. Charles Percy, J. William Fulbright and Rep. Cynthia McKinney of Georgia. We are the United States of Israel and they all know it.
No, spotlessmcpartlandattax. If you had read the article carefully you should have understood that "Jewish" was used appropriately.
"Jewish" is used correctly only when it is part of the title of an organization such as "Jewish Voice for Peace." Otherwise, "zionist" is more suitable.
Nothing wrong with Zionist, I am a Christian Zionist, so what? Peace will
come when the truth is acknowledged by all: There never was a state of Palestine;
history proves that all if Palestine is Israel, the Jewish homeland "Palestinians"
have a state in Jordan.
Change will occur only when Arabs realize that Israel is here to stay! No more compromises with the PLO
a terror organization founded by Arafat, designed to rid the country of all Jewish; not create a Palestine state, You all that criticize Israel have no historical basis whatsoever, while you appease terror groups. You're pathetic excuse for an argument.