Answering the American Studies Association

ASA Members Vote To Endorse Academic Boycott of Israel, American Studies Association, 16 December 2013.

This statement, and especially the Endorsements attached below it, provide a good example of the jewish narrative blowing back on jews. The swift and explosive response from jews outside the ASA illustrates, yet again, that jews aren't "white" in any meaningful political sense and their ethnostate isn't subject to the usual standards by which "white" states are judged.

The divisively unanswerable questions of what it means to be ‘pro-Israel’, Max Fisher, 17 December 2013:

On Monday night, the heads of two major pro-Israel organizations and the editors of two publications associated with support for Israel gathered for a relatively routine event: a panel discussion at the 92nd Street Y, in New York, on "what it means to be pro-Israel." A few hours earlier, members of the American Studies Association, an association of some 5,000 American studies college professors, had voted 2 to 1 to boycott Israeli universities. Shortly after the panel moderator and editor-in-chief of the Jewish Daily Forward, Jane Eisner, raised the issue, the panel broke up in a relatively spectacular walk-off.

In debates about Israel, disagreements that might seem minor on the surface – the "tyranny of small differences," as one Israel-watcher put it to me – are often something much graver. If you know what to watch for, you can observe somber, serious people like these four panelists talk around underlying issues so sensitive they are rarely addressed or even acknowledged. Issues that are almost always below the surface, but too deep to come out except in moments of the most heated candor, often surprising even the people naming them.

These are questions so difficult, and that cut so close to the core of what it means to be an American supporter of Israel, that even scholars or professionals with decades invested in Israeli issues will hesitate to touch them. But you can hear them, if only hinted at, in arguments like Monday evening's. Is it good or bad for Israel that more American Jews are questioning Israeli policies? At what point, if ever, should one's support for Israel be limited by the needs of non-Israelis touched by the conflict? Is a Zionist's responsibility to guard Israel's survival, to guard Israel's interests or merely to concern oneself dispassionately with the issues facing the country?

Some of these questions are simply unanswerable. Some are trick questions. Some are highly taboo; the question about competing interests can easily echo accusations, made by the most anti-Semitic movements in history, that Jews harbor "dual loyalties" and cannot be trusted. But many are just extremely difficult, touching on issues of identity, politics and personal responsibility. They cause conflict both because no one can agree on the answers, or often even the terms of the questions themselves, and because everyone ends up judging one another according to their own personal and widely varying standards.

What's best for the jews? This is the central question around which jewish arguments about politics, identity and everything else revolve. To a jew this question is "unanswerable" only in the sense that they never stop asking it. By exaggerating their disagreements on answers jews downplay their agreement on the question.

In asking this question jews show no fear of tricks or taboos. What they fear are the wholly different questions which inevitably form in the minds of non-jews. Who are these jews? What are they doing? Why should anyone tolerate the conflict and harm they cause? These questions, and the "anti-semitic movements" which coallesce in response, have historically been instigated by the words and deeds of the jews themselves, by jewish parasitism, by jews infiltrating, manipulating and exploiting their host society.

In the case at hand the jews are more and more openly directing the resources of the United States toward Israel. They anticipate a hostile reaction because one is justified. The existence of Israel, their fruiting body, only highlights jewish parasitism. It inspires even nominally "liberal" jews to fret most illiberally over their particularist identity and interests, even when those interests are being served so clearly at the expense of others. It inspires even nominally "conservative" jews, like John Podhoretz, to tantrum at domestic tribemates on behalf of foreign tribemates.

How do they answer the ASA? By orchestrating political and academic boycotts, of course. Jews in government are moving to cut off government funds to ASA supporters and jews in universities are directing them to cut off support for ASA. No "dual loyalty" here. These jews in positions of power demonstrate that they see themselves as jews first, and see the institutions over which they have some measure of power as vehicles for advancing the interests of jews. One institution has vexed them, so they are using their influence over others to exact punishment.

Jews know they don't face any substantial, organized opposition. The only real difficulty they have is in communicating about their conspiracy. Their problem is more cryptological than ideological. How to discuss and advance jewish interests while suppressing any "anti-semitic movement"? Their answer, as always, is to do both, because they are in essence the same.

The Hagelcaust

The Hagel controversy highlights how jews dominate policy-making in the US.

Here we examine the jewish origins and overwhelmingly jewish debate over a list of what many jews regard as significant grievances against Chuck Hagel. Much of this has been hidden in plain sight, tucked away in jew-centric forums. It was brought to broader mainstream attention in a WSJ op-ed by Brett Stephens, Chuck Hagel's Jewish Problem. An army of jews have been very publicly and vociferously expressing their problems with Hagel ever since.

On 7 Jan 2013, Marsha Cohen published A Chronology of the War Against Chuck Hagel (PDF) which begins:

The smear campaign against Chuck Hagel did not begin on Dec. 14, 2012. The former Nebraska senator’s opposition to war as the preferred means of conducting foreign policy made him a maverick during the post-9/11 Bush years. Although most Republicans agreed with Hagel’s socially conservative positions on domestic issues, his nuanced approach to foreign policy — and his view that diplomacy was a more efficacious means of securing long term US interests than sending in troops with an unclear and/or undefined strategic objective — set him apart from many of his fellow party members.

Some criticism of Hagel began to surface in 2007, when he briefly considered running for president as a Republican. In an effort to thwart his candidacy and undermine his potential candidacy, the National Jewish Democratic Council (NJDC) compiled a list of petty grievances that would constitute the core of most neoconservative excoriations of Hagel, persisting in cyberspace long after the NJDC had scrubbed all references to them from its website.

In the first page alone Cohen notes, in addition to the NJDC, the following jewish political organizations which have opposed or supported Hagel: AIPAC, Republican Jewish Coalition, J Street, and the Emergency Committee for Israel (ECI). Together with the many other organizations, media outlets, and individual high-profile jews whose opinions have been widely publicized, as cited both in Cohen's document and in the posts I've made on the subject, a picture emerges of a large, multi-faceted, well-connected, highly-coordinated network dedicated, on the whole, specifically to the pursuit of jewish political interests.

The fact that this political network cleaves along different lines at different times in response to different issues - as it has with Hagel - does not alter its fundamentally jewish composition or the fundamentally jewish interests that it debates and collectively pursues. To excuse themselves, jews often call attention to the noise of the debate itself and away from the goal of the debate. "Two jews, three opinions!", they say. "Two jews, three opinions about what's best for the jews!", is closer to the truth.

The following links and quotes come from following just a portion of Cohen's lengthy PDF. They demonstrate the long-term and party-line-crossing nature of the jewish debate over Hagel.

88 Senators Condemn Hezbollah. 10 Republicans break ranks on Israel., Philadelphia Jewish Voice PJV#15, Sept 2006:

"When it comes to Israel and the Jewish community, the hypocrisy of Republicans in Congress is just overwhelming. How is it that Republicans in the Senate can claim to be supporters of Israel when almost 20 percent of their caucus — including their top two Members on the Foreign Relations Committee and top Republican on the Armed Services Committee — apparently does not think that Hezbollah should be on the E.U. list of terrorist organizations," asked NJDC Executive Director Ira Forman. "While Democrats are out there trying to punish Israel's enemies and ensure that she has a right to defend herself, these ten Republican senators have no problem with the international community treating Hezbollah as a legitimate organization. Shame on them."

In 2006 it was Democrat jews trying to punish, or at least shame, Republican senators, including Hagel, for not "trying to punish Israel's enemies". The shameless underlying presumption is that either Israel and the US interests are identical, or more likely, that Israeli interests matter more.

Cohen writes:

March 12, 2007. National Jewish Democratic Council compiles a list of complaints against Hagel. It subsequently removed the grievances from the NJDC website, but was screen-captured and preserved by ad man and Breitbart.com columnist, Jeff Dunetz, and will serve as the basis for future "opposition research" on Hagel's positions on Israel and Hezbollah

Jeff Dunetz blogs under the pseudonym Yid with Lid. He republished a copy of the NJDC list on the same day it was issued. The list cites Hagel's "failures" from a specifically jewish point of view as far back as Oct 2000. This NJDC list is what Cohen dismissively describes in her introduction as "petty grievances". The jews she cites all take it much more seriously.

Two years later the same list was still at the center of the ongoing jewish debate about Hagel. NJDC Chief Weighs in on Hagel Appointment (Update w/RJC in Response), by Michael Goldfarb, The Weekly Standard, 29 Oct 2009:

Yesterday the Republican Jewish Coalition was taunting its Democratic rival, the National Jewish Democratic Council, over the appointment of former Republican Senator Chuck Hagel to serve a co-chair of the President's National Intelligence Advisory Board. As the RJC was quick to point out after news of the appointment broke, the NJDC had put out several statements over the years blasting Hagel for his "questionable Israel record." In particular, Hagel had refused to sign a series of letters that had broad bipartisan support and which focused on a range of issues of great importance to the Jewish community. He had refused to sign a letter in August 2006 asking the EU to declare Hezbollah a terrorist organization. In 2004, Hagel had refused to sign a letter urging President Bush to highlight Iran's nuclear program at the G-8 summit.

NJDC executive director Ira Forman responded by blasting his counterpart at the RJC, Matt Brooks. Brooks, Forman said, is "not concerned with little issues like shame or hypocrisy." Forman said that RJC had plenty of opportunities to question Hagel's record when Hagel was serving in the Senate. "Apparently [the RJC] just recently had a revelation" about Hagel's foreign policy views. But neither was Forman prepared to denounce Hagel again now that the shoe was on the other foot. "Anybody who's looking for purity from us is going to be disappointed," Forman said in the course of declining to criticize the appointment.

Still, Forman isn't a fan of Hagel. He suggested that NJDC would publicly oppose Hagel's nomination for a position with more authority. "If [Hagel] was taking a policy role, we'd have real concerns," Forman said. And Forman indicated that his group would oppose Hagel's appointment to any position that had influence over U.S.-Israel relations.

While the RJC may not have "even a little credibility to attack" this appointment, as Forman says, the bipartisan show of discomfort with Hagel's foreign policy views suggests Hagel is not destined for a bigger role in this administration.

An interesting postscript to this story is the fact that Hagel's appointment was announced at J Street's gala dinner on Tuesday night just before Hagel delivered the keynote speech at that event. NJDC is an explicitly partisan, Democratic organization, while J Street aspires, or at least claims to aspire, to bipartisan influence.

Most jewish political organizations aspire to bipartisan influence. A characteristic trait of jewish political organizations is the flexibility of their partisanship, which usually results in a "bipartisan show of discomfort" (or comfort) most jews can agree on.

The partisan switcheroo on Hagel is a case in point. Jews from all sides continue to debate the same list of specifically jewish concerns, clearly demonstrating how jewish ethnic interests rise above the ebb and flow of party ideologies and loyalties. For or against Hagel their unchallenged presumption, often explicitly stated, is to ensure the selection of someone who will serve the best interests of the jewish ethnostate.

Dunetz brought the NJDC list of grievances back to light last month and added some fresh vitriol. "The Lid": Will the NJDC Oppose Terrorism Loving, Israel-Hating Chuck Hagel's Appointment As Sec of Defense?, 13 Dec 2012:

Senator Hagel often appears before Arab-American groups to air his views regarding the Middle East. Among the gems of wisdom: support for Israel shouldn't be automatic. .

He has also joined a chorus of people surrounding Barack Obama who use the anti-Semitic meme about the so-called Jewish Lobby.

Says Hagel: "The political reality is that... the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here." This audio should be heard to truly gauge his own feelings.

Note his use of the term "Jewish Lobby". There are many millions of Americans who are not Jewish, who support the American-Israel relationship. Hagel pushes the meme that Jews control American foreign policy (if they did--they would do a better job than this administration).

Note the self-identified Yid with Lid's use of the term "jewish lobby". It's a telling combination of mocking, gloating, contempt and denial.

Dunetz is part of an ethnocentric jewish chorus who expect US government and military leaders to support Israel. Some, like Dunetz, expect that support to be automatic. It's a given to Dunetz that the US government could do a better job serving jewish interests. It is with this end in mind that he tosses self-righteous insults and insinuations with abandon, freely projecting his own unhinged passions onto Hagel. Thus Hagel becomes "Terrorism Loving, Israel-Hating" boogeyman Hagel. What's so ineffably jewish about such wild, deluded exaggerations is that rather than costing Dunetz his credibility or livelyhood, he expects that it should cost Hagel his.

The debate over Hagel is dominated by jews. They dominate the debate over most political issues. In this case they've just made themselves more vocal and visible than usual. However many Americans there are who aren't jews, and however they feel about anything, it's entirely accurate to identify and refer to a "jewish lobby" whose activism represents, at root, pursuit of the best interests of jews.

If Blue people and some others were arguing over what's best for the Bluish ethnostate, and some Blue people started making a big deal over whether somebody who isn't Blue referred to it as the "Bluish ethnostate lobby" or the "Blue lobby", that would rightly be seen as a distinction without a difference. What's different here is that it's jews, not Blues, who are involved.

The ridiculous arguments Dunetz and others make in defense of jewish power wouldn't make sense when applied to anyone else. They make such arguments because they consider jews special and aren't thinking in terms of anyone else. They aren't ridiculed because 1) even the jews who oppose Dunetz are ethnocentric enough not to take issue with the presumption that jews are special, and 2) everyone else is more or less ignorant of, allied with, or intimidated by jewish power.

This jewish chimp-out over Hagel's nomination demonstrates the enormous influence jews have, think they have, or think they should have over US policy-making. It also raises some important questions. Is it really controversial that a US senator or secretary of defense should have the best interests of the US rather than Israel foremost in their mind? Isn't this only controversial because the political discourse is so chock full of jews willing and able to argue more or less dishonestly in favor of whatever they think is best for jews? Isn't this a reflection of the jewish domination of the corporate, mainstream media? Is there anybody left in mainstream politics or media who will dare make the simple point that none of this is good for the rest of us? When?

Jews Override Hagel Veto

Well, well. Previous reports of Chuck Hagel's political death were greatly exaggerated.

A Hagel Education, published on 7 Jan 2013 by WSJ:

President Obama on Monday chose Chuck Hagel to lead the Pentagon, inviting a confirmation brawl over a troubling nominee. The Senate should oblige. The Hagel hearings are an opportunity to have the debate over Mr. Obama's policies and a growing world disorder that we didn't have in the election campaign.

The suggestion that the Senate has more of a say about US policy than the jewish lobby is quaint. After nearly a month in which one or more of the terms "jewish lobby", "Israel lobby", and "Israel" appeared in nearly every mainstream media op-ed about Hagel, this WSJ report is most conspicuous for not mentioning any at all, even if only to acknowledge what has already transpired. It is indicative of an overall shift in the debate.

But no one questions Mr. Hagel's patriotism and military service. What matters at the top of the Pentagon, at this moment in history, is how he would deal with today's growing security threats amid Mr. Obama's desire to withdraw the U.S. from its traditional role of world leadership.

Only now are questions beside what's best for Israel being brought to the fore. The debate so far has been primarily between jews, their main question being whether Hagel will be good for their ethnostate. That question is still not entirely settled. What has been settled is that this is the primary question. It's not about what should matter most to the US Department of Defense, which many Americans still like to imagine has something to do with the defense of the United States. Likewise, it's not about whether the US should "lead the world", which is just a sick and dishonest way of describing the killing and dying US soldiers have been and will continue doing to keep the world safe for jews.

WSJ's Brett Stephens is the journalist-warrior jew who set the jew-centric tone of the subsequent debate with his 17 Dec 2012 op-ed, Chuck Hagel's Jewish Problem. Now he's making the case that the question is Chuck Hagel's Courage, but still can't help give away the game:

But give Mr. Hagel this: When it comes to expressing himself about Israel, its enemies, and the influence of the so-called Jewish lobby, he has been nothing if not consistent and outspoken. Maybe that's political courage. Or maybe it's a mental twitch, the kind you can't quite help. The confirmation process should be illuminating.

It has already been illuminating. It will be even moreso if the confirmation process makes more jews twitch like Stephens.

Not every jew has decided to shift gears yet. Some are still twitching in response to Stephens initial hit piece. In The tarring of Chuck Hagel published by The Washington Post yesterday, Richard Cohen writes:

I thought the day had long passed when a skeptical attitude toward this or that Israeli policy would trigger charges of anti-Semitism. The accusation is so powerful — so freighted with images of the Holocaust — that it tends to silence all but the bravest or the most foolish. Israeli policy of late has been denounced by some steadfast champions of the Jewish state — the New York Times’ Thomas Friedman or the New Republic’s Leon Wieseltier, for example — so being caustically critical is hardly evidence of anti-Semitism. Rather, it can be a sign of good judgment, not to mention a caring regard for the aspirations of Zionism.

The article that implied Hagel was a touch anti-Semitic was headlined “Chuck Hagel’s Jewish Problem” and suggested that Hagel’s statement that “the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here” in Congress had “the odor” of prejudice. A PC sort of guy might have put things more delicately: If there is an odor here, however, it is not the rancid stench of anti-Semitism but instead of character assassination.

This is typical of what passes for "caustic criticism" in jewish minds - jews gnashing their teeth at other jews about who is the better jew. Two jews might appear to be arguing vociferously, but note how their language never gets more venomous than when they talk about "anti-semitism", their common cause eventually bubbling to the top, overriding all others.

The sad reality that contemporary political discourse is so dominated by jews and their concerns didn't just happen. It is the product of a long slogging effort by jews. A process by which anyone jews perceive as an enemy is pathologized and demonized, and thereby cowed or marginalized, if not utterly silenced. When a jew cries, "X has a jewish problem", it's a call for jews to pounce on X.

Chuck Hagel is the most recent example of how this "jewish lobby" process works. If he makes the right combination of sufficiently subservient gestures, acknowledging and accepting jewish domination without calling further negative attention to it, then he might get the job. If not, he won't.

Now with the ground well prepared it's safe to get back to the old Red-vs-Blue again, to act as if jews don't have power, and move on. For example, here's David Brooks in Why Hagel Was Picked, published on 7 Jan 2013 by NYTimes.com:

Chuck Hagel has been nominated to supervise the beginning of this generation-long process of defense cutbacks. If a Democratic president is going to slash defense, he probably wants a Republican at the Pentagon to give him political cover, and he probably wants a decorated war hero to boot.

All the charges about Hagel’s views on Israel or Iran are secondary. The real question is, how will he begin this long cutting process? How will he balance modernizing the military and paying current personnel? How will he recalibrate American defense strategy with, say, 455,000 fewer service members?

How, in short, will Hagel supervise the beginning of America’s military decline? If members of Congress don’t want America to decline militarily, well, they have no one to blame but the voters and themselves.

One reason jews won't openly acknowledge their political power is because they realize it's fundamentally dishonest and illegitimate - made possible by the vast majority of people not recognizing it for what it is. This is the threat Stephens was sniffing out in the loose talk from an uppity goy senator about the "jewish lobby". What's weighing on Brooks' mind is related. If and when anything goes wrong jews can be counted on to blame anyone but jews. Brooks is looking to the future, anticipating this eventuality.

Jews Veto Hagel

Chuck Hagel may be off of Obama’s shortlist to head DOD, by Adam Kredo, Washington Free Beacon, 19 Dec 2012:

Hagel immediately drew a frosty reception from observers who criticized him for advocating in favor of direct unconditional talks with Iran and for backing sizable cuts to the defense budget.

Those who have worked with Hagel and have an intimate knowledge of his managerial style also expressed concerns about his possible appointment.

Sources on Capitol Hill told the Free Beacon that opposition to Hagel reaches all the way to the Embassy of Israel, which is said to have quietly expressed concern about the former senator.

“Our office has talked with the Israel embassy who says their policy is to support whatever the president wants in his cabinet and would not provide further comment,” one Senate aide told the Free Beacon. “With a little prodding, our contact at the embassy did allude to their concern for Hagel’s nomination.”

An Israeli embassy spokesman declined comment.

Hagel has drawn additional heat from insiders who claim he lacks the credentials needed to manage a department as large and essential as the Pentagon.

“Yes, Hagel has crazy positions on several key issues. Yes, Hagel has said things that are borderline anti-Semitism. Yes, Hagel wants to gut the Pentagon’s budget. But above all, he’s not a nice person and he’s bad to his staff,” said a senior Republican Senate aide who has close ties to former Hagel staffers.

“Chuck Hagel may have been collegial to his Senate colleagues but he was the Cornhusker wears Prada to his staff, some of whom describe their former boss as perhaps the most paranoid and abusive in the Senate, one who would rifle through staffers desks and berate them for imagined disloyalty,” said Michael Rubin, a former Pentagon adviser on Iran and Iraq. “He might get away with that when it comes to staffers in their 20s, but that sort of personality is going to go over like a ton of bricks at the Pentagon.”

“Chances are he’ll view any legitimate effort to talk about military options with Iran as some plot by the ‘Israel Lobby’ to box him in,” the source said.

Reviewing the objections to Hagel, aside from the inconsequential nonsense, it's plain that the that Israel-firsters, AKA the Israel Lobby, AKA jews, effectively vetoed his nomination. They did so in the characteristically dishonest way jews usually go about exercising their power - a gaggle of jews furiously, publicly debating in markedly jewish terms, with the final verdict being Hagel has magically disqualified himself, because jews don't actually have any power.

In this absurd debate, represented in part by Doug Bandow's Neocons Against Chuck Hagel: The Independent Senator Who Wouldn't Genuflect, we hear what are considered examples of Hagel's "anti-semitism": "I'm a United States senator. I support Israel. But my first interest is I take an oath of office to the Constitution of the United States. Not to a president. Not a party. Not to Israel." Even more scandalous, "The political reality is that ... the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here."

The political reality is that USGOV officials, even at the very top, cannot say they would put US interests above Israel's, much less actually do so. Beside that, the mythical divide between "liberal" and "neocon" is once more revealed as a lie. In the wake of Obama's re-election the "liberals" are supposedly in power. The "neocons" should be licking their wounds. The political reality is dominated by jews debating the best interests of jews. Whatever the outcome, jews win.

There are copious examples of this farce. Beyond the two articles already cited I'll call attention to two more.

In Nebraska Jews Recall Senator Chuck Hagel as "Unfriendly" and "Unmovable" on Israel, "Didn't Give a Damn About the Jewish Community", published by Algemeiner.com, 21 Dec 2012, we read:

Former editor of the Omaha Jewish Press, Carol Katzman, who was in that role while Hagel was in office, related her experiences with him in an interview with The Algemeiner.

“He was not the most responsive politician in Nebraska to me personally at the Jewish Press and to the Jewish community as a whole,” she said.

“Every other senator, Nelson, Mike Johanns, (congressman) Lee Terry and (congressman) Peter Hoagland they were all very responsive,” she explained, “it didn’t really matter what their party affiliation was, if we were soliciting them for an interview or a greeting ad for Rosh Hashonah or Passover.” However Katzman says that “Hagel’s office never even responded,” adding, “we would make repeated calls, (and received) no response it was pretty obvious that he and his staff were dismissive.”

To be fair, articles like this weren't part of the debate, which is already over. It does however contain an essential element of the debate, whereby jews lamely try to rationalize their distaste for Hagel and stick him with the blame for it.

In Gil Troy's Hagel: Not An Anti-Semite, Just A Slob, published in the Open Zion section of The Daily Beast on 19 Dec 2012, there is more of the same:

Without rehashing the entire debate, as senator, Hagel was more of an Israel skeptic than an enthusiastic Israel friend, no Ted Kennedy, or John McCain, or Joe Biden, or Hillary Clinton was he. And for that reason, snarky comments about the “Jewish lobby” and about being a “United States Senator” and “not an Israeli Senator” rankle. Prejudice has a pedigree. Just as we winced when Biden as a candidate called Obama “articulate”—because of the twisted history that had many people questioning black people’s brains and eloquence, respectful American leaders should not stir the hornet’s nest around the Israel lobby question.

Here is another characteristic strand of jewish argument, with Troy arrogantly lecturing "leaders" to respect jewish power by pretending it does not exist. He then recounts a lesson about that power from 20 years ago:

I learned from Malcolm Hoenlein that Shoshana Cardin, the President of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, confronted President George H.W. Bush after his dramatic September 1991 press conference, claiming he was “one lonely little guy” facing “powerful political forces,” after 1,200 Israel activists lobbied Congress seeking loan guarantees to help Israel resettle emigrating Soviet Jews. In a private meeting, Cardin explained that talk of Jewish lobbyists out-muscling the president echoed traditionally bigoted exaggerations about Jewish power. Bush pointed out that he “didn’t use the word ‘Jews.’ ” Cardin explained he did not have to. “Everyone understood that the people you were referring to were Jewish. That’s why the White House switchboard lit up with so many messages of support from anti-Semites.”

“I never intended to hurt anyone,” Bush said, teary-eyed, “Or give encouragement to anti-Semitism.” He then apologized to the American Jewish leaders gathered to meet him.

Even US presidents fear jewish power. One way to reconcile the jewish view of this as a "bigoted exaggeration" is to understand that, at least in the minds of hyper-jew-centric jews, US presidents can and should be doing even more for jews. For another example of this, read this bitter jew-centric assessment of Richard Nixon, another president whose failure to openly identify his and his country's enemies hasn't made those enemies hate him any less.

The take-away, once again, is that jewish rhetoric about "anti-semitism" is a simple and effective inversion and projection of their own obsessions and aggression. White political leaders should naturally seek to serve the interests and favor of fellow Whites. But none actually do. Instead what we have is a political reality in which jews relentlessly pathologize and demonize Whites for illusory "White privilege" and ineffective political "dog whistling". Meanwhile jews make ever more blatant and outrageous demands of a regime which already serves their interests first and foremost. Both are sure signs that jewish power not only exists, but is increasing. It will continue to increase until it is faced with real opposition.

Saban: Obama is Best for Israel

The Truth About Obama and Israel, by Haim Saban, NYTimes.com:

AS an Israeli-American who cares deeply about the survival of Israel and the future of the Jewish people, I will be voting for President Obama in November. Here’s why.

Blah, blah, Israeli-firster rationale omitted.

When I enter the voting booth, I’m going to ask myself, what do I prefer for Israel and its relationship with the United States: meaningful action or empty rhetoric? To me the answer is clear: I’ll take another four years of Mr. Obama’s steadfast support over Mr. Romney’s sweet nothings.

Haim Saban is a private equity investor, the chairman of the Spanish-language media company Univision and a founder of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution.

What's best for America and Americans? "Israeli-American" Haim Saban and the New York Times don't even pretend to care.

Dan Senor: Romney's Jewish "Connector"

Romney’s Jewish Connector:

How Dan Senor became the GOP candidate’s key emissary to Israel’s intelligentsia and the Washington policy scene

Tablet Magazine is a jewish organ, and their article is a vetting of sorts, which in this context means a review of Senor's history of working with other jews in pursuit of the best interests of jews. For the rest of us the article serves as a window into the workings of the jewish/judaized ruling class, both in Israel and the United States.

To some, Senor remains best known as the spokesman for the Coalition Provisional Authority, a role that made him a regular television fixture in the immediate aftermath of the 2003 Iraq invasion. In the years since, he’s reinvented himself as a cable news commentator and Israel advocate and has simultaneously amassed his own fortune working on Wall Street. He is, even among people who vehemently disagree with his politics, a popular guy who moves with equal ease in New York and Washington. He arrived in the governor’s camp with his own celebrity, and, in a sense, he offers the socially awkward candidate the thing his campaign most craves: an easy ability to make people like him. More importantly, Senor has been a vital emissary over the past six years for Romney not just to the Israelis and the American Jewish community, but to a Republican foreign-policy establishment that, even today, remains somewhat alien territory.

Senor arrived at his current role by way of an itinerant and mostly accidental career that has afforded him access to a wide range of very powerful, very famous, and very rich people. As an ambitious college intern on the Hill, he caught the attention of William Kristol, the editor-in-chief of the Weekly Standard, who gave him entree into the neoconservative circle surrounding George W. Bush. Senor eventually became the face of the Bush Administration’s efforts in Iraq, both during his time in Baghdad and later as a television pundit; while he was in Baghdad, he met his future wife, Campbell Brown, then a reporter for NBC. In between he went to Harvard Business School, worked for the Carlyle Group, and started a private-equity firm with his classmate and friend Chris Heinz, stepson of former Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry.

But his greatest success came in 2009, with the publication of Start-Up Nation, a slim blue-and-white volume he wrote with his brother-in-law, the Israeli newspaper columnist Saul Singer. Since its release in 2009, at the depths of the financial crisis, the book has become required reading for the entire Israeli government and for much of the American Jewish community. (The Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad also keeps a copy on his desk.) The title alone has become shorthand for the modern, techno-centric aspects of Israel, as distinct from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. “It showed that every conversation about Israel doesn’t have to be about the settlements,” Senor told me when he and I met recently for dinner at Solo, a kosher restaurant in Manhattan.

In 2010, Senor was floated by Republicans, including Rudy Giuliani, as a possible Senate candidate in New York, but he decided not to enter the race, which would have pitted him against popular Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand. He now works for Paul Singer, the billionaire hedge-fund manager who is among Romney’s most prominent Wall Street backers. (Singer is no relation to Senor’s brother-in-law.) Senor is also a regular on Morning Joe, where he has become the show’s go-to conservative guest. To critics on both the left and the right, he represents the worst of the Bush era—the prioritization of loyalty and ideology over experience and expertise. “He was on MSNBC pushing for more robust intervention in Syria, and he was going up against a general,” said one longtime Republican operative, who asked not to be identified. “I was saying to myself, This is a guy where, if you look at him, no one’s ever going to confuse him with anyone who ever put on a uniform.”

But Senor’s varied background makes him a perfect interlocutor for Romney in clubby think-tank and fundraising circles. “There are a lot of smart guys in Washington who do some policy, some politics, some fundraising,” Kristol said. “But he certainly knows more than a lot of those guys, or knows better how it works.” In September 2009, after Romney’s first run for the Republican nomination, he joined Senor onstage at a conference hosted by the Foreign Policy Initiative, an organization Senor launched with Kristol and Robert Kagan. Romney made passing reference to an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, prompting Senor to note it had been written by Bret Stephens, a columnist well known in conservative circles. “Brad Stephens’ piece?” Romney asked, blankly. “Bret Stephens,” Senor corrected. “Bret Stephens,” Romney repeated, and looked out at the audience. “Sorry, Bret.”

But, in a year when Israel has emerged as a central foreign-policy litmus test, Senor also brings an unusual advantage to the governor’s campaign: his close relationships with a small, influential group of American expats clustered in Jerusalem’s German Colony who operate at the highest levels of Israeli public life. Much has been made of Romney’s pre-political acquaintance with Netanyahu, dating to when they were both young men working for the Boston Consulting Group. But Senor, who travels to Israel several times a year, has ties to Jerusalem’s elite that are unusually personal and that are magnified by the uniquely Anglo-inflected nature of Netanyahu’s current government.

For Tablet's jewish audience, the Republican foreign-policy establishment is "alien territory", in contrast to Israel, which is more like home.

Jew-Firsters vs Israel-Firsters

In Why I am using 'Israel firster' again M.J. Rosenberg writes:

Short definition: you are an Israel Firster if you believe it is acceptable to criticize US Presidents (whether Obama, Bush or any other) but believe that you must stand behind any and all Israeli policies and prime ministers. Call it “my country, right or wrong” but with a significant twist.

The reason Israel Firster became so explosive in 2012 is because (1) this is the year the lobby wants the United States to either attack Iran or allow Israel to do it and (2) this is the year in which tens of millions of dollars of unregulated campaign contributions are flowing to the Republican candidate for president simply because the single-issue crowd believes that Mitt Romney is the candidate most likely to fit comfortably in Netanyahu’s pocket.

The lobby's biggest fear is that the American people will figure this out and that the blow back will harm the US-Israel relationship.

Frankly, I share part of that worry. But my fear is that if the American people do figure out what AIPAC and its friends are up to, it could harm us here. After all, the lobby has done a great job convincing Congress and opinion leaders that they represent all Jews not just 4%.

I don't want my kids or theirs tainted with any association with those who are pushing for war with Iran, as they did with Iraq, or who blackmail presidents into supporting policies that harm the United States.

How to prevent that?

Frankly, I think I’m more than entitled to call this spade a spade. I have supported Israel (not, however, its more horrific policies) my whole life. I believe that Israel should survive and live in security, in some kind of arrangement with the Palestinian people who deserve peace, security and sovereignty just as much as Israelis do. Also, I speak as someone whose own kids are first generation. Their mom, my wife, was born in a Displaced Persons camp in Germany to two Polish Jews who survived the Holocaust.

I simply cannot be intimidated by those who business is intimidation. The way I see it, both my country, America, and a country I deeply care about, Israel,and the Jewish people are all being placed at risk by a small bunch of multi-millionaires and billionaires whose only interests are self-aggrandizement, hob-nobbing with those in power, and crushing anyone who gets in their way.

One day, everyone will understand that. It should be our mission to make sure that before they do, we break the back of an unrepresentative, dishonest and corrupt lobby that jeopardizes us all.

Rosenberg insinuates that he speaks for 96% of jews. According to him the problem with Israel-firsters is that what they're doing isn't good for the jews. What's more, as an entitled, morally self-righteous, holocaust-invoking jew he won't be intimidated into silence by the entitled, morally self-righteous, holocaust-invoking jews in the other 4%.

Mitt Romney, the Republican candidate for president, is at this moment in Israel performing his humiliating donning-of-the-skullcap ceremony, pledging fealty and obeisance to the interests of an alien nation.

This bizarre pilgrimage and rite of misdirected loyalty has become de rigueur for all aspirants to political "leadership" today, no matter their religious, political or state affiliation. Obama too, First Jewish President, "leader" of the free world, has already performed, and today is blasted for not renewing his vows.

Such is the thoroughly judaized state of the current regime. After decades of purges the only open opponents to the Israel-firsters who remain are jew-firsters. Where the Israeli-firsters wear their loyalty more or less on their sleeves, their jew-firster critics, like Rosenberg, are just as corrupt and dishonest in that they misrepresent the nature of the whole dispute as political or economic when it is in fact purely jewish. The primary concern, on all sides, is what's best for jews. They simply disagree about what's best for which jews.

The image above comes from the jew-firsters at Breitbart, who cite and join a broad swath of organized jewry denouncing Rosenberg, explaining:

While the term [Israel-firster] might not immediately be considered derogatory, in context, it’s usually apparent that it’s not meant in a positive way.

It all depends on the point of view. Whites are regularly subjected to intentionally derogatory terms such as "racist", "nazi", and "White supremacist". None of this is meant in a positive way either, except again in the sense that it comes from people whose main obsession is what's best for the jews.

Weaponizing the Jewish Narrative

Charles Krauthammer on Fox News Channel, Krauthammer: Israel ‘will strike’ Iran to ‘prevent a second holocaust’:

Unless something intervenes,” Krauthammer replied. “I cannot imagine the Israelis are going to allow Iran to go nuclear and to hold the Damocles sword over 6 million Jews all over again. Israel was established to prevent a second Holocaust, not to invite one.

Elliott Abrams in The Weekly Standard, Blaming the Jews—Again:

If you were an anti-Semite dedicated to spreading your hatred of Jews, what charges exactly would you make in 21st century America?

You would avoid the blood libel—too medieval to write of sacrificing Christian children to make Passover matzo. That kind of stuff circulates in Arab lands or Pakistan, but won’t sell in suburban America. And the “Christ-killer” material is also dated, what with Vatican II, Evangelical support for Israel, and the like.

There are two charges you would make. First, the rich Jews control our government. Second, those Jews are trying to push America into war so your sons will have to fight for Israel.

Following a long-established pattern, Krauthammer agitates for "something" to intervene on behalf of "6 million jews" to prevent a "holocaust", while Abrams aids the effort by projecting his own jew-specific hate onto anyone who objects, blaming them for objecting.

Krauthammer is arguing that Iranians have to die for Israel. Abrams is arguing that Americans have to die for Israel.

A Jew-Firster Spat About Israel-Firsters

Jeffrey Goldberg writes in Is the Term 'Israel-Firster' Anti-Semitic?, at The Atlantic, on 19 Jan 2012:

There's been a controversy raging over the past month or so that I've avoided writing about mainly because it has a Groundhog Day quality to it. It began with this very interesting Ben Smith piece, but lately it has become tiresome. Apparently, it is not tiresome to other pepole, because it just keeps going. The seemingly most urgent question to emerge from this controversy is whether or not the term "Israel-firster" is anti-Semitic. The term is used by Media Matters, the left-wing advocacy group, to describe American Jews with whom it disagrees on American Middle East policy, and it was also used by staffers of the Center for American Progress, the important liberal think tank, to describe same. CAP has disavowed the language, and apologized on behalf of the staffer who used the term; Media Matters doesn't seem to care.

So, is "Israel-firster" anti-Semitic? Its origins are certainly anti-Semitic, and the idea that Jews are incapable of being loyal to the country of their citizenship and are only loyal to world Jewry, or the Jewish state, is an age-old anti-Semitic trope.

For non-jews the "controversy" has been tiresome all along - it's just the latest episode of jews debating jews about what's best for jews. The obsession with arguing about whether this or that is "anti-semitic" is symptomatic of a jew-first attitude. The trope here is the jewish conceit that they may freely exhibit such attitudes while everyone else must act as if they're incapable of noticing.

The next day Goldberg had more to say. A Question From Glenn Greenwald, 20 Jan 2012:

I don't think CAP is anti-Semitic (it's pretty hostile to Israel, but it's not as if it has called for the Jewish state's destruction), but the term "Israel-Firster" is originally a neo-Nazi term (Willis Carto's fascist Liberty Lobby was a big proponent of its use, as is David Duke), and it is meant to raise questions about a Jewish person's willingness to be loyal to America (this is merely the local variant of an ancient anti-Semitic trope). CAP, to its credit, acknowledged the anti-Semitic nature of the term, and apologized. (I wrote about the controversy here.)

Obviously, use of the term "Israel-Firster" to describe someone with whom you disagree is not meant to open a discussion, or advance an argument, but to demonize your opponent. When Jews use it, as Joe Klein does, it is particularly unfortunate, because it is a term specifically designed to marginalize Jews in the American political discourse, and people like Joe Klein will eventually reap the whirlwind, in one form or another. The mainstreaming of hostility toward any group of Jews leads inevitably to the mainstreaming of hostility to Jews generally. And of course it's probably a sound idea for Jews to avoid using neo-Nazi-derived slurs to describe other Jews.

This is why I'm taking the time to write about this latest tiresome episode of jew-firstiness. Did you catch what Goldberg did right there? Did you notice how he used the terms "neo-Nazi", "fascist", and "anti-semitic" to describe someone with whom he disagrees? How he indirectly explained that he doesn't mean for it to open a discussion, or advance an argument, but to demonize his opponent?

Words are not the problem, it's facing what they mean that Goldberg can't handle. "Israel-firster" is literally more descriptive than any of the terms he uses to demonize his opponents. To the extent "neo-Nazi", "fascist", and "anti-semitic" mean anything it amounts to "anti-jew" - which is exactly the kind of thing a jew-firster would be concerned about. Jefferey Goldberg is both a jew-firster and an Israel-firster. Israel and jews literally come first in his mind.

A few days later Goldberg was happy to quote someone else regurgitating his jew-first views. A Straight Line From Lindbergh to 'Israel-Firster', 23 Jan 2012:

[C]urious minds want to know whether the Gingrich campaign will continue to reap the largesse of Las Vegas billionaire Sheldon Adelson, who seems an unlikely Gingrichian. To explain it, some critics have taken to calling Adelson an "Israel-firster." That ugly term has been applied, not just to Adelson, but to other supporters of current U.S. policies regarding Israel, as Atlantic Monthly writer Jeffrey Goldberg describes.

Bashing Jews for their supposed disloyalty to their nation is a crude maneuver that has been employed long before Israel existed. It has been a tactic of both the far-left and far-right, almost as though haters from both extremes come together on the dark side of the moon.

Demonizing people in this way is always a nasty form of argumentation, but in our country it is particularly disquieting when this kind of discourse seeps into the mainstream of our major political parties. Lately, that seems to have happened within certain Democratic circles, as Ben Smith reported in Politico. In Charles Lindberg's time, the intolerance on display by the "America-First" crowd was mostly (but not exclusively) Republican.

Yes, it is a crude maneuver to demonize people in this way, for example, as "haters from both extremes come together on the dark side of the moon".

The difference is that the America First "crowd", including Charles Lindbergh, openly identified themselves and their interests, whereas jew- and Israel-firsters pretend they aren't and intolerantly demonize anyone who calls them on their pretense.

Path to National Suicide Discussion at Mangan's

Path to National Suicide

A long discussion was triggered when Mangan contrasted GOI's immigration and naturalization policy with USG's. That discussion recently bumped into a Blogger limit, so consider this one place to comment on or continue that discussion.

Our Jewish Problem

Here's a mainstream media article that makes no bones about the jewish hegemony over US politics. The central point of debate is whether jews think Obama is good or bad for the jews. That they have the power to decide his fortune, one way or the other, is taken for granted.

The tone for this exposition of particularist jewish concerns is set right in the title. Tsuris is yiddish slang meaning "trouble or woe; aggravation". The masters of finance, politics and media are displeased, and they intend for us to know it.

The Tsuris - Why Barack Obama Is the Best Thing Israel Has Going for It Right Now, John Heilemann, New York Magazine, 18 Sept 2011:

Barack Obama is the best thing Israel has going for it right now. Why is that so difficult for Netanyahu and his American Jewish allies to understand?

How, exactly, did Obama come to be portrayed, and perceived by many American Jews, as the most ardently anti-Israel president since Jimmy Carter?

This meme, of course, has been gathering steam for some time, peddled mainly by right-wing Likudophiles here and in the Holy Land. But last week, it took center stage in the special election in New York’s Ninth Congressional District, maybe the most Jewish district in the nation and one held by Democrats since 1923. When the smoke cleared, the Republican had won—and Matt Drudge was up with a headline blaring REVENGE OF THE JEWS.

Obama’s people deny up and down that the loss of a seat last occupied by Anthony Weiner portends, well, pretty much anything for 2012. But the truth is that they are worried, and worried they should be, for the signs of Obama’s slippage among Jewish voters are unmistakable. Last week, a new Gallup poll found that his approval rating in that cohort had fallen to 55 percent—a whopping 28-point drop since his inauguration. And among the high-dollar Jewish donors who were essential to fueling the great Obama money machine last time around, stories of dismay and disaffection are legion. “There’s no question,” says one of the president’s most prolific fund-raisers. “We have a big-time Jewish problem.”

Obama’s team has made its share of errors in the conduct of its diplomacy and in allowing misperceptions to take hold: that its tough-love approach to Israel has been all the former and none of the latter; that its demands on the Palestinians have been either negligible or nonexistent. And many Jewish voters, like those Wall Street financiers (and, to be sure, the overlap between those groups isn’t trivial) who flocked to Obama and were then chagrined when he called them out as “fat cats,” have all too often focused more on the president’s words than his deeds—and come away with the impression that he doesn’t seem to “feel Israel” in his bones.

For Obama, such assessments would be funny if they weren’t so frustrating and absurd; and for the Jews who know him best, they are simply mystifying. In the last days of the 2008 campaign, the former federal judge, White House counsel, and Obama mentor Abner Mikva quipped, “When this all is over, people are going to say that Barack Obama is the first Jewish president.” And while that prediction has so far proved to be wildly over-optimistic, there is more truth in it than meets the eye.

The suspicions regarding the bone-deepness of Obama’s bond with Israel were present from the start, and always rooted in a reading of his background that was as superficial as it was misguided. Yes, he was black. Yes, his middle name was Hussein. And yes, in his time in Hyde Park, his friends included Palestinian scholars and activists, notably the historian Rashid Khalidi. But far more crucial to Obama’s makeup and rise to prominence were his ties to Chicago’s Jewish milieu, whose players, from real-estate powerhouse Penny Pritzker to billionaire investor Lester Crown, were among his chief supporters and financial patrons. In 2008—after herculean efforts by his campaign to reassure the Jewish Establishment that he was, er, kosher and stamp out the sub-rosa proliferation of the lie that he is a Muslim—he won 78 percent of the Jewish vote, four points higher than John Kerry’s total four years earlier.

This background meant that, although Obama was hardly an old hand on Israel when he became president, he was well attuned to the Jewish community and its views. “With the kind of exposure he had to Jewish backers, Jewish thinkers, in Illinois,” says deputy national-security adviser Ben Rhodes, “he came into office with a deeper understanding of Jewish culture and Jewish thought than, I would argue, any president in recent memory.”

The American push for a settlement freeze would be the first flash point in Obama’s relations with Israel and also a turning point in his standing with Jewish voters at home. With Netanyahu having just reassumed the prime-ministership in a coalition government that included several ultraconservative parties, he resisted Obama’s call for a freeze. American Jews, meanwhile, saw the administration as aggressively pressuring Israel but treading softly on the Palestinians. In combination with its policy of engagement with Iran, this fostered the impression that Obama’s stance amounted to punishing America’s truest friend in the region while rewarding its—and Israel’s—most lethal foe.

And then there was Netanyahu’s surpassingly volatile governing coalition, which was held together by far-right nationalist, fundamentalist, and even proto-fascistic elements (cf. Avigdor Lieberman).

Omitted: paragraphs detailing yet another Netanyahu snub.

But Netanyahu knew he could get away with it—so staunch and absolute is the bipartisan support he commands in the U.S. Garishly illuminating the point, on the night before his speech to Congress, the prime minister attended the annual AIPAC policy conference in Washington, where he was the headline speaker at the event’s gala banquet. Before he took the stage, three announcers, amid flashing spotlights and in the style of the introductions at an NBA All-Star game, read the names of every prominent person in the room, including 67 senators, 286 House members, and dozens of administration and Israeli officials, foreign dignitaries, and student leaders. (The roll call took half an hour.) When Harry Reid spoke, he obliquely but unambiguously chastised Obama for endorsing the use of the 1967 lines as the basis for a peace deal: “No one should set premature parameters about borders, about building, or about anything else.” The ensuing ovation was deafening—but a mere whisper compared with the thunderous waves of applause that poured over Netanyahu.

The next day came his speech to Congress, in which he spelled out demands that were maximal by any measure: recognition by the Palestinians of Israel as a Jewish state as a precondition for negotiations, a refusal to talk if Hamas is part of the Palestinian side, an undivided Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, and absolutely no right of return for Palestinian refugees.

Exactly one month after his Oval Office awkwardfest with Netanyahu, Obama made the mile-and-a-half trip from the White House to the Mandarin Oriental Hotel to have dinner with several dozen wealthy Jews. His appearance had twin objectives: to rake in more than $1 million and to calm their jangled nerves. Unlike many conservative Jews, the big-ticket Democrats in the room, who had paid $25,000 to $35,800 a head to be there, didn’t believe that Obama was hostile to Israel. Yet it’s fair to say they had their share of qualms and a ton of questions.

In addition to deploying Axelrod and DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, his campaign has hired an official outreach director to try to fix its Jewish problem: Ira Forman, the former head of the National Jewish Democratic Council. Forman is known for an encyclopedic knowledge of Jewish politics and a history in waging trench warfare against Republican Jewish groups. But none of that will prepare him for the job he is taking on. “A lot of what he’ll be doing is coaxing and persuading,” says a Jewish Obama megabundler. “A lot of people who raised a ton of money for the president last time are very short on enthusiasm for doing it again.”

The hiring of Forman is a tacit acknowledgment that the White House has badly handled the continual care and feeding required to keep major donors sweet—and all the more so in this case. The first White House liaison to the community was Susan Sher, who at the time was chief of staff to Michelle Obama. “Lovely woman, but she knew nothing about Israel,” says an Obama bundler, who some time ago attended a dinner with Sher and a clutch of A-list tribesmen: Mort Zuckerman, HBO co-chief Richard Plepler, Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen. “It was kind of insulting to have this woman talking to these people who know this issue backward and forwards. And then there was no follow-up. Nothing.”

Both the nature and scale of Obama’s Jewish problem—at least where donors are concerned—are tough to pin down. A recent poll by the Republican firm McLaughlin & Associates found that among Jewish donors who gave to Obama in 2008, just 64 percent have already donated or plan to donate to him this time. Complicating the picture is the fact that Jewish buckrakers cite a variety of complaints with Obama: Some object to his rhetoric on Wall Street, some to his economic policies, and some to his handling of Israel.

Omitted: paragraphs explaining why the jewish vote in NY-9 (Anthony Weiner's vacacted seat) doesn't matter.

On the other hand, thanks in large part to the indefatigable Ed Koch, who endorsed Obama in 2008 but has now become one of his loudest (and loopiest) critics on Israel, the NY-9 election was framed to an unusual extent as a referendum not just on Obama but on his supposed betrayal of the chosen people. All over TV and the web was Koch, doing a squawky imitation of Romney, saying that the “Obama administration is willing to throw Israel under the bus in order to please the Muslim nations.”

Even in the face of the most pessimistic (for Obama) reading of NY-9, Democrats will comfort themselves with two facts. The first is that, for all the outsize attention they command—and the earsplitting volume of the collective megaphone they wield—Jews make up about 2 percent of the national electorate. Too small a proportion, that is to say, to matter much to the overall popular vote.

The second ostensibly comforting fact for Democrats has to do with the trend lines of recent presidential-election history: Obama’s 78 percent of the Jewish vote, Kerry’s 74 percent, Al Gore’s 79 percent, Clinton’s 78 and 80 percent in 1996 and 1992, respectively. The implication here is that, in the end, the Jews will come home to Obama—mainly because they are overwhelmingly liberal and have nowhere else to go.

The trouble for Republicans is that, in the extant crop of candidates, there is no one who bears even a passing resemblance to Dutch. Though Rick Perry is as avidly pro-Israel as any politician alive—“If you’re our friend, we are with you,” he says. “I’m talking about Israel. Come hell or high water, we will be standing with you!”—his positions on almost every other issue are anathema to virtually every Jew to the left of Eric Cantor. And Perry’s theocratish tendencies have been criticized even by some who are pretty far right; the Christian rally he held in Houston not long before jumping into the race, “The Response,” was derided by Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League as a “conscious disregard of law and authority” because of the way it traversed the spheres of church and state.

Mitt Romney is an entirely different case. Within the Republican donor class, Romney is the strong favorite. He has actively courted the AIPAC crowd, staking out hawkish positions on Iran and pillorying Obama on Israel. The day before he opened his Florida headquarters earlier this month, Romney dropped in on a local AIPAC meeting in Tampa and was greeted with a standing O. But when it comes to winning over independent Jews or queasy Democratic ones, Romney may have done too effective a job in transforming himself from a pro-choice, pro-gay-rights moderate into a more conventionally conservative candidate. “He’s a phony,” a cheeky Democratic operative notes. “But for a lot of Jews, he may turn out to be just a little too convincing.”

The premise of Obama’s approach to Israel all along has been straightforward. Given the demographic realities it faces—the growth of the Palestinian population in the territories and also of the Arab population in Israel itself—our ally confronts a fundamental and fateful choice: It can remain democratic and lose its Jewish character; it can retain its Jewish character but become an apartheid state; or it can remain both Jewish and democratic, satisfy Palestinian national aspirations, facilitate efforts to contain Iran, alleviate the international opprobrium directed at it, and reap the enormous security and economic benefits of ending the conflict by taking up the task of the creation of a viable Palestinian state—one based, yes, on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed upon land swaps, with East Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital.

The irony is that Obama—along with countless Israelis, members of the Jewish diaspora, and friends of Israel around the world—seems to grasp these realities and this choice more readily than Netanyahu does. “The first Jewish president?” Maybe not. But certainly a president every bit as pro-Israel as the country’s own prime minister—and, if you look from the proper angle, maybe even more so.

Heilemann proceeds from an explicit recognition that jewish financial power ("the non-trivial overlap between jewish voters and Wall Street financiers") and jewish political contributions ("the high-dollar Jewish donors who were essential to fueling the great Obama money machine") drive US politics. Clearly this drive extends beyond their current focus on Obama and Israel.

Heilemann idolizes jews and their ethnocentrism. Whether as "the Jewish vote", "the Jewish Establishment", "the Jewish community", "the Jewish diaspora" or just plain old "the Jews", jews and jewish interests are presented in a purely positive light. This is in stark contrast to the cynical, sinister regard for Whites and White political interests found in most of the mainstream media. Jews are not pathologized for having a group identity, nor are they portrayed negatively for openly arguing about and pursuing their own group interests, independent of the rest of us.

Heilemann and US media pundits and politicians in general treat jewish nationalism with the utmost deference and respect. Though Israel is a jewish ethnostate, ruled by a coalition "held together by far-right nationalist, fundamentalist, and even proto-fascistic elements", it enjoys the obsequious fealty of Obama and other top US politicians. This may cause consternation for some jews who don't think it is good for the jews, but their grumbling pales in comparison to the pitiless condemnation and vilification routinely aimed at any form of White nationalism.

Heilemann confides that even the most powerful non-jewish politicians in the US are expected to "feel Israel in their bones". This is really just one facet of the more general requirement to placate jews, doing whatever they deem best for themselves. But the jews often can't agree on what they think is best, and so what results is a humiliating, circus-like environment in which US presidents and their challengers regularly profess their love for the jews, only to get kicked in the teeth by one subset of jews or another who don't find the performance pleasing enough.

Here Heilemann describes Rick Perry as "avidly pro-Israel as any politician alive" and yet "anathema to virtually every Jew to the left of Eric Cantor". In other words, anathema to virtually every jew. Heilemann's point is that Obama and every contender for his job each have their own jewish problems, though different in degree. As Heilemann relates the dances these clowns perform to please the jews, what comes through loud and clear is the presumption that the rest of us are immaterial. How this impacts our lives if of no concern. In this way Heilemann indirectly informs us that we all have a jewish problem.

The Jew Cries Out in Pain as He Strikes You

Canada Gets Tough on Anti-Semitsim, Avi Benlolo, President and CEO, Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center, Canada, Huffington Post, 21 Sept 2011:

The government of Canada took an historic step yesterday by signing the Ottawa Protocol to Combat Anti-Semitism. By doing so, it recognized anti-Semitism as a pernicious evil and a global threat against the Jewish people, the State of Israel and free, democratic countries everywhere. As Prime Minister Stephen Harper has noted, "Those who would hate and destroy the Jewish people would ultimately hate and destroy the rest of us as well."

The protocol is a declaration that hatred of this nature will not be tolerated in this country. It sets out an action plan for supporting initiatives that combat anti-Semitism and provides a framework for other nations to follow.

It also sets out a vibrant definition of anti-Semitism which, for the first time in history, links anti-Semitism to the denial of the right Jewish people have to their ancestral home land -- the State of Israel. This, in fact, is what sets post-World War Two anti-Semitism apart from its historic roots. Today's anti-Semitism is all about denial: denial of the legitimacy of Zionism as a Jewish movement to reclaim the land of Israel; denial of a Jewish history in connection to the holy land and, in particular, the centrality of Jerusalem to the Jewish people; denial of the Holocaust (while at the same time accusing Jews of Nazism); and denial of Jews to live free of anti-Semitism, hate and intolerance.

Unquestionably, the Government of Canada's stance on Israel is based on the principle of standing by your friends -- especially when they are democracies and advocates for human rights. Most Jewish leaders would agree that Israel is indeed Canada's greatest ally in the fight against hate and intolerance.

But the fight against hatred and anti-Semitism must be won here in Canada as well. The Ottawa Protocol is mostly the result of a report published this summer by a Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Anti-Semitism which was comprised of leading Canadian politicians who volunteered their time to probe the increasing and alarming tide of anti-Semitism in Canada.

The Ottawa Protocol to Combat Anti-Semitism is a template for every Canadian to consider. But it is especially a document of significance for universities that have allowed themselves to become vehicles of hatred and complicit in its promotion. As my friend, Professor Irwin Cotler said last night at the Ottawa signing ceremony, anti-Semitism is not only the longest known form of hatred in the history of humanity -- it is the only form of hatred that is truly global.

Every person of conscience should take note of the Ottawa Protocols and never forget the lessons of the Holocaust when the world was silent.

The full text of the Ottawa Protocol:

We remain alarmed by ongoing state-sanctioned genocidal antisemitism and related extremist ideologies. If antisemitism is the most enduring of hatreds, and genocide is the most horrific of crimes, then the convergence of the genocidal intent embodied in antisemitic ideology is the most toxic of combinations.

We are appalled by the resurgence of the classic anti-Jewish libels, including:

+ The Blood Libel (that Jews use the blood of children for ritual sacrifice)
+ The Jews as "Poisoners of the Wells" - responsible for all evils in the world
+ The myth of the "new Protocols of the Elders of Zion" - the tsarist forgery that proclaimed an international Jewish conspiracy bent on world domination - and accuses the Jews of controlling government, the economy, media and public institutions.
+ The double entendre of denying the Holocaust - accusing the Jews of fabricating the Holocaust as a hoax - and the nazification of the Jew and the Jewish people.

Scheuer On Israel

The Israeli inflluence on the US (7-Sept-11)(GLOBAL FOCUS series - US)

Former New Jersey Superior Court judge Andrew Napolitano questions former CIA operative and Bin Laden hunter Michael Scheuer on Fox News.

Napolitano: First thing, should we be surprised that the American government, whether it's the intelligence agencies or the FBI, is spying on our allies here in the United States of America or is this something that has been going on for years and we just didn't know about it until recently?

Scheuer: Well if it was a real ally like Canada or Britain or Australia we would be surprised, but it's a pleasant surprise to me to find out that the FBI is spying on the Israelis. The Israelis are certainly an immensely malign influence in the United States. They steal our technology, they suborn government employees to spy for them and transfer documents, and certainly their influence through citizen groups like AIPAC on the Congress is politically corrupting. So I think they're perfectly correct to be spying on the Israelis.

Napolitano: Well what does Benjamin Netanyahu say to president Obama the next time they meet? "Why are your people listening to my phone calls? That was me talking to the ambassador while some agent of yours was listening!"

Scheuer: Well Netanyahu will just tell the president what to do and what not to do. That's what Israeli prime ministers do to US presidents. And what will happen in the congress is the congressmen and women who are owned or at least bribed by AIPAC and other US citizen organizations that support Israel will threaten the FBI with budget cuts or manpower cuts if they don't stop watching the Israelis.

Napolitano: Got it.

From Scheuer's past statements, critical of USG's relationship with GOI, I get the distinct impression he is a true American patriot, but I have never seen such a heretical view broadcast on mainstream television before. And yet there is, so far, no visible uproar. Glenn Beck was derailed by paranoid and jew-obsessed jews who thought he was becoming the next Father Coughlin. How and when will Scheuer and Napolitano be taken out?

Via http://4chon.net/new/.

A Disagreement About Who is Firstest

The video above is part of a CNSNews article, DNC Chair: Republicans Believe Illegal Immigration 'Should be a Crime', 31 May 2011. It quotes Wasserman Schultz spouting the usual apologia in favor of genocidal levels of immigration into the US:

“We have 12 million undocumented immigrants in this country that are part of the backbone of our economy and this is not only a reality but a necessity," she said. "And that it would be harmful--the Republican solution that I’ve seen in the last three years is that we should just pack them all up and ship them back to their own countries and that in fact it should be a crime and we should arrested them all.”

12 million? The backbone of our economy? The Republican solution is arresting them all? Political views don't get much more detached from reality than this. And this is not some random US congresswoman. Wasserman Schultz leads one of the two major political parties.

The second half of the video starts with a question about a disagreement at a meeting which took place a few days earlier. Note that this question triggers a far more impassioned response:

Question: The Republican Jewish Coalition head was reported in the New York Times - Matt Brooks is saying that you were proposing a gag order on this subject.

Wasserman Schultz: Ha ha, yeah, well, uh, you know I take... one of the most tremendous sources of pride for me is that I am the first jewish woman to represent the state of Florida in Congress. And, ah, another tremendous source of pride for me is that I am a pro-Israel jewish member of Congress and I proudly support a president that is pro-Israel. Um. What I think is unfortunate and what I suggested, along with others, including members of the Republican Jewish Coalition that are not the executive director of that organization, um, is that we need to make sure, like AIPAC pushes for, like Jewish Federation pushes for, like ADL and every major jewish organization pushes for in this country, we need to make sure that Israel never becomes a partisan issue. And that's what we talked about in that meeting.

The meeting was a bipartisan jewish affair regarding jewish interests. Jewish GOP official blasts DWS, Politico, 24 May 2011:

The top official at a Republican Jewish group blasted Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz for an “unprecedented and inappropriate” effort to quell partisan debate over Israel in a private meeting with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu yesterday at which both were present.

Republican Jewish Coalition Executive Director Matt Brooks clashed with Wasserman Schultz, as I reported yesterday, after Wasserman Schultz called for partisan unity on matters of Israel policy and Brooks – whose group had criticized her for speaking before the liberal group J Street – responded that he reserved the right to attack Democrats who stray from a hawkish pro-Israel line.

Another take on the interview and the disagreement - DNC chair argues Obama isn't losing support of Jewish voters, Los Angeles Times, 26 May 2011:

The South Florida Democrat laughed at charges leveled by the head of a Republican Jewish group that she wanted to squelch partisan criticism over Israel. Matt Brooks, executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition, accused Wasserman Schultz of proposing a “gag order” on criticism about Israeli policy when they and others met privately with Netanyahu this week.

“We need to make sure that Israel never becomes a partisan issue, and that’s what we talked about in that meeting,” Wasserman Schultz said. She quoted Netanyahu as saying, at the end of the meeting, that when it comes to Israel, “we need to erase the aisle” between Democrats and Republicans.

“Everyone that calls themselves legitimately pro-Israel believes that we should not make Israel a partisan issue. Unfortunately, I think there are organizations that claim to be pro-Israel that are partisan first and pro-Israel second. And I think unfortunately the way the Republican Jewish Coalition has conducted itself is they put their Republicanism in front of their pro-Israel stance. And I think that’s unfortunate. And I think it’s why the Israeli Embassy said that Israel should not be a partisan issue.”

Here are a couple of previous media reports concerning Wasserman Schultz's background.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz picked as Democratic National Committee chair, POLITICO, 5 Apr 2011:

The congresswoman is beloved by the Democratic rank and file for her aggressive, outspoken advocacy for liberal points of view. She’s frequently deployed as a surrogate, particularly to groups of women and Jewish voters.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz Picked to Chair D.N.C., NYTimes, 5 Apr 2011:

Ms. Wasserman Schultz is known inside the party for her strong fund-raising abilities, and she represents South Florida, which will be a critical battleground in the 2012 presidential race.

Some background on Matthew Brooks:

Matthew Brooks serves as Executive Director of both the Republican Jewish Coalition, an organization dedicated to enhancing ties between the Jewish community and the Republican Party, and the Jewish Policy Center, a think-tank that examines public policy from a Jewish perspective.

Matt began his political career as State Chairman of the Massachusetts College Republicans while still an undergraduate at Brandeis University in Waltham, MA. Matt managed the Jack Kemp for President campaign in Massachusetts, as well as directed projects in New Hampshire and New England. Matt became the Political Director of the Republican Jewish Coalition in 1988. Taking a leave of absence from the RJC, Matt served as the National Field Director for Victory ‘88 Jewish Campaign Committee, designing and implementing campaign strategy on behalf of the Bush-Quayle ‘88 campaign. Matt was appointed Executive Director of the RJC in 1990.

Matt was twice selected (in 2006 and 2008) by the Jewish Forward as one of the 50 most influential Jews in America.

In addition to his duties leading the RJC, Matt also serves as the organization’s principal spokesman. In this role Matt has been a frequent guest on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC and has been quoted extensively in publications such as the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal and other major newspapers.

One of the many consequences of jewish influence in media and academia is that the perfectly descriptive term Zionist Occupation Government is painted as "an antisemitic conspiracy theory". Yet, the jewish conspiracy is right out in the open. Erase the aisle. Israel first, party second. This is the state of US politics today.

What we see here is a disagreement between hyper-ethnocentric jews who hold positions of great power and have strong influence over the US government. What they care about most is what's best for the jewish ethnostate of Israel. They all agree that in US politics the interests of Israel should always come first, across the board, for everyone, not just jews. The big question for them is whether to continue imposing this the usual stealthy judeo-liberal way, or the usual in-your-face judeo-conservative way.