So actually, there are splits among people who identify themselves as Jews,
in relation to Israel and although the situation is very complex, there are
3 main groups. There are those who support Israel unconditionally. There are
those who are called "liberal Zionists", who support Israel as a home for
the Jews, but also support a 2 state solution by which they mean that the
Palestinians should have land and be self governing, but have no means of
defense, and there is a third group of Jews who are anti-Zionist, who
believe that Palestine should be a place where Jews and Palestinians live
together in a democratic, secular state. I imagine that Sanders is a Liberal
Zionist. Back in the early 90's when that was my position, I was called a
self hating Jew by a supporter of Israel.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of joe harcz Comcast
Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2016 9:52 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: No Reward for Sanders's Israel Stance
This is the bottom line. For decades we who have opposed the Zionist,
imperialist thing in the mideast have been labeled antti-semetic!
Now Bernie Sanders a Brooklyn born Jew who worked on a freaking kibbutz fo
crying outloud is decride as anti-semetic?
How fucking insane is all of this>?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Miriam Vieni" <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2016 9:41 AM
Subject: [blind-democracy] No Reward for Sanders's Israel Stance
https://consortiumnews.com/2016/04/20/no-reward-for-sanderss-israel-stance/h
Parry writes: "Sen. Sanders showed guts when he broke from the political
lock-step of unrestrained praise for Israel, but his loss in the New York
primary shows there's little reward for such courage."
Bernie Sanders. (photo: AP)
No Reward for Sanders's Israel Stance
By Robert Parry, Consortium News
22 April 16
Sen. Sanders showed guts when he broke from the political lock-step of
unrestrained praise for Israel, but his loss in the New York primary shows
there's little reward for such courage, writes Robert Parry.
So much for political bravery! Sen. Bernie Sanders had the audacity to say
that the Palestinians are human beings, that there are two sides to the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict and that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu is "not right all of the time" - and lost the New York primary
by
more than 15 percentage points.
Obviously, there were many other factors, including the tightly closed
rules
for the New York primaries, requiring voters to have declared their party
affiliation by last October or be barred from participating.
But still New York Democrats did not appear to reward Sanders for breaking
with Official Washington's orthodoxy on Israel, which holds that the only
permissible political stance is total obeisance to Netanyahu and his
government. Whether Sanders's stance hurt him may be debatable but the
election result could resonate nonetheless with future candidates who
might
be more chary about taking a more even-handed position on
Israel-Palestine.
In one of the sharper exchanges from last Thursday's Democratic debate,
Sanders, who is Jewish and once worked on an Israeli kibbutz, chided his
rival, Hillary Clinton, for appearing before the American Israel Public
Affairs Committee last month and giving a speech that "barely mentioned
the
Palestinians."
While political insiders gasped at his heresy, Sanders plunged on, "All
that
I am saying is we cannot continue to be one-sided. There are two sides to
the issue. . There comes a time when if we pursue justice and peace, we
are
going to have to say that Netanyahu is not right all of the time."
By contrast, former Secretary of State Clinton and the three remaining
Republican candidates, including front-runner Donald Trump, went
politically
prostrate before AIPAC, competing to see who could out-pander the others.
Clinton Prevails
Despite serious efforts by Trump, Ted Cruz and John Kasich, Clinton
appeared
to come out on top in the pander-off, perhaps partly because she is more
experienced at telling Israel's right-wing government what it wants to
hear.
She depicted Israel as an innocent victim in the Mideast conflicts facing
unconscionable challenges from Iran, the Palestinians and global activists
seeking to put pressure on Israel through a program of boycott, divestment
and sanctions.
"As we gather here, three evolving threats - Iran's continued aggression,
a
rising tide of extremism across a wide arc of instability, and the growing
effort to de-legitimize Israel on the world stage - are converging to make
the U.S.-Israel alliance more indispensable than ever," she declared.
"The United States and Israel must be closer than ever, stronger than ever
and more determined than ever to prevail against our common adversaries
and
to advance our shared values. . This is especially true at a time when
Israel faces brutal terrorist stabbings, shootings and vehicle attacks at
home. Parents worry about letting their children walk down the street.
Families live in fear."
Clinton promised to put her future administration at the service of the
Israeli government. "One of the first things I'll do in office is invite
the
Israeli prime minister to visit the White House. And I will send a
delegation from the Pentagon and the Joint Chiefs to Israel for early
consultations. Let's also expand our collaboration beyond security,"
Clinton
said, adding:
"the first choice is this: are we prepared to take the U.S./Israel
alliance
to the next level?"
Clinton's one-sided presentation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict fit
with her longstanding approach to the Middle East, where she has either
actively supported or quietly accepted Israel meting out military
retribution on the region's Arabs, even when justified by clear-cut
bigotry.
For instance, in summer 2006, as a Senator from New York, Clinton shared a
stage with Israel's Ambassador to the United Nations Dan Gillerman while
Israeli warplanes pounded southern Lebanon, killing more than 1,000
Lebanese. Gillerman was a well-known Muslim-basher who had once quipped,
"While it may be true and probably is that not all Muslims are terrorists,
it also happens to be true that nearly all terrorists are Muslim."
At a pro-Israel rally with Clinton in New York on July 17, 2006, Gillerman
proudly defended Israel's massive violence against targets in Lebanon.
"Let
us finish the job," Gillerman told the crowd. "We will excise the cancer
in
Lebanon" and "cut off the fingers" of Hezbollah.
Responding to international concerns that Israel was using
"disproportionate" force in bombing Lebanon and killing hundreds of
civilians, Gillerman said, "You're damn right we are." [NYT, July 18,
2006]
Clinton did not protest Gillerman's remarks, since doing so would
presumably
have offended an important pro-Israel constituency.
Clinton has learned those lessons well. They may have helped her trounce
Sanders in the crucial New York primary, pulling her close to clinching
the
Democratic nomination. By contrast, Sanders might have won scattered
praise
for political courage but his bravery clearly did not turn around the New
York race.
________________________________________
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories
for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest
book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book
(from
Amazon and barnesandnoble.com). You also can order Robert Parry's trilogy
on
the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for
only $34. The trilogy includes America's Stolen Narrative. For details on
this offer, click here.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not
valid.
Bernie Sanders. (photo: AP)
ttps://consortiumnews.com/2016/04/20/no-reward-for-sanderss-israel-stance/
No Reward for Sanders's Israel Stance
By Robert Parry, Consortium News
22 April 16
Sen. Sanders showed guts when he broke from the political lock-step of
unrestrained praise for Israel, but his loss in the New York primary shows
there's little reward for such courage, writes Robert Parry.
o much for political bravery! Sen. Bernie Sanders had the audacity to say
that the Palestinians are human beings, that there are two sides to the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict and that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu is "not right all of the time" - and lost the New York primary
by
more than 15 percentage points.
Obviously, there were many other factors, including the tightly closed
rules
for the New York primaries, requiring voters to have declared their party
affiliation by last October or be barred from participating.
But still New York Democrats did not appear to reward Sanders for breaking
with Official Washington's orthodoxy on Israel, which holds that the only
permissible political stance is total obeisance to Netanyahu and his
government. Whether Sanders's stance hurt him may be debatable but the
election result could resonate nonetheless with future candidates who
might
be more chary about taking a more even-handed position on
Israel-Palestine.
In one of the sharper exchanges from last Thursday's Democratic debate,
Sanders, who is Jewish and once worked on an Israeli kibbutz, chided his
rival, Hillary Clinton, for appearing before the American Israel Public
Affairs Committee last month and giving a speech that "barely mentioned
the
Palestinians."
While political insiders gasped at his heresy, Sanders plunged on, "All
that
I am saying is we cannot continue to be one-sided. There are two sides to
the issue. . There comes a time when if we pursue justice and peace, we
are
going to have to say that Netanyahu is not right all of the time."
By contrast, former Secretary of State Clinton and the three remaining
Republican candidates, including front-runner Donald Trump, went
politically
prostrate before AIPAC, competing to see who could out-pander the others.
Clinton Prevails
Despite serious efforts by Trump, Ted Cruz and John Kasich, Clinton
appeared
to come out on top in the pander-off, perhaps partly because she is more
experienced at telling Israel's right-wing government what it wants to
hear.
She depicted Israel as an innocent victim in the Mideast conflicts facing
unconscionable challenges from Iran, the Palestinians and global activists
seeking to put pressure on Israel through a program of boycott, divestment
and sanctions.
"As we gather here, three evolving threats - Iran's continued aggression,
a
rising tide of extremism across a wide arc of instability, and the growing
effort to de-legitimize Israel on the world stage - are converging to make
the U.S.-Israel alliance more indispensable than ever," she declared.
"The United States and Israel must be closer than ever, stronger than ever
and more determined than ever to prevail against our common adversaries
and
to advance our shared values. . This is especially true at a time when
Israel faces brutal terrorist stabbings, shootings and vehicle attacks at
home. Parents worry about letting their children walk down the street.
Families live in fear."
Clinton promised to put her future administration at the service of the
Israeli government. "One of the first things I'll do in office is invite
the
Israeli prime minister to visit the White House. And I will send a
delegation from the Pentagon and the Joint Chiefs to Israel for early
consultations. Let's also expand our collaboration beyond security,"
Clinton
said, adding:
"the first choice is this: are we prepared to take the U.S./Israel
alliance
to the next level?"
Clinton's one-sided presentation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict fit
with her longstanding approach to the Middle East, where she has either
actively supported or quietly accepted Israel meting out military
retribution on the region's Arabs, even when justified by clear-cut
bigotry.
For instance, in summer 2006, as a Senator from New York, Clinton shared a
stage with Israel's Ambassador to the United Nations Dan Gillerman while
Israeli warplanes pounded southern Lebanon, killing more than 1,000
Lebanese. Gillerman was a well-known Muslim-basher who had once quipped,
"While it may be true and probably is that not all Muslims are terrorists,
it also happens to be true that nearly all terrorists are Muslim."
At a pro-Israel rally with Clinton in New York on July 17, 2006, Gillerman
proudly defended Israel's massive violence against targets in Lebanon.
"Let
us finish the job," Gillerman told the crowd. "We will excise the cancer
in
Lebanon" and "cut off the fingers" of Hezbollah.
Responding to international concerns that Israel was using
"disproportionate" force in bombing Lebanon and killing hundreds of
civilians, Gillerman said, "You're damn right we are." [NYT, July 18,
2006]
Clinton did not protest Gillerman's remarks, since doing so would
presumably
have offended an important pro-Israel constituency.
Clinton has learned those lessons well. They may have helped her trounce
Sanders in the crucial New York primary, pulling her close to clinching
the
Democratic nomination. By contrast, Sanders might have won scattered
praise
for political courage but his bravery clearly did not turn around the New
York race.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories
for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest
book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book
(from
Amazon and barnesandnoble.com). You also can order Robert Parry's trilogy
on
the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for
only $34. The trilogy includes America's Stolen Narrative. For details on
this offer, click here.
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
