I had written "national socialism", by which I meant pan-Arab socialisms like Baathism which are partially indebted to Nazi thinking. Israel has a long history of Social Democracy (and experimentation with non-coercive socialism), and of course its people are nationalist, but unless you think countries like England and France aren't liberal democracies there is no call for your scare quotes.

-- John-Paul Pagano

"which are partially indebted to Nazi thinking"

Either that, or you are ignorant of history and like that chain around your neck to be jerked. No. You must read assclowns like Daniel Pipes! The Jews had far more dealings with the Nazis than any Arabs ever did. At least the Jews were mostly white. I can find no link between nazism and the Ba'ath party from any credible source.

All these sources are Jewish, BTW.

Below is a "copy" in its entirety of a very important letter to the New York Times from Jewish intellectuals including Albert Einstein, Hannah Arendt, and Sidney Hook that appeared on December 4, 1948. Of particular interest is the reference to the Deir Yassin massacre which occured earlier that year. While it is quoted from in brief on several web sites, it appears nowhere in its entirety, and it deserves to be disseminated as it originally appears.

Letters to The Times New York Times December 4, 1948

New Palestine Party Visit of Menachem Begin and Aims of Political Movement Discussed

TO THE EDITORS OF THE NEW YORK TIMES:

Among the most disturbing political phenomena of our times is the emergence in the newly created state of Israel of the "Freedom Party" (Tnuat Haherut), a political party closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties. It was formed out of the membership and following of the former Irgun Zvai Leumi, a terrorist, right-wing, chauvinist organization in Palestine...

Read the whole thing

http://phys4.harvard.edu/~wilson/NYTimes1948.html

51 Documents: Zionist Collaboration with the Nazis

by LENNI BRENNER

http://www.counterpunch.org/brenner1223.html

If anyone didn't follow that link to Max Blumenthal's video of that nut-job convention, go do it now. Just incredible.

Max may just be the next Michael Moore. Great stuff.

Thank heavens! I was worried about you going M.I.A. on this topic; I was convinced you'd finally granted yourself the eternal peace you seem to long for. This world and its people just aren't good enough for the likes of you ... except maybe for one tiny sliver of the Middle East. Why aren't you there now?

Very well constructed argument.

Lieberman is simply, nakedly, unabashedly, pro-Israel in all situations.

The Katrina stuff is absolutely disgusting. The lack of regard for the poor and infirm, the “least of these” (whom Christ actually said were most deserving of our time and resources) is not only reviling, it is also a massive distortion of the very religion he claims to practice. It’s really worse than “lack of regard”, though. He doesn’t ignore them, he actually uses them as props in the self-aggrandizing melodrama he plays out in his own head. Logically if “they” are sinners punished by God, then he is the holy warrior bravely swimming against the tide of evil that threatens to ruin America and put Israel at risk.

L is not so different himself. Lieberman is, by all accounts, a supposedly devout Jew. By definition, this means that he thinks that this Reverend is an ignorant man preaching a corruption of L’s faith that has marginalized the primacy of the Jewish people and usurped God’s promise to them. Also, Westernized Jews who are serious about their faith have a slew of cultural resentments about the majority Christian societies in which they have assimilated.

And yet…”the enemy of my enemy is my friend”…a most Machiavellian calculation from a self-styled holy man like L. When L says Hagee is a “man of God”, it means far less than it appears. In the Old Testament, there is a Gentile man named Balaam who acts as a prophet of God without even knowing it. This is not an unfamiliar concept to an Orthodox Jew like L, and this is how he views somebody like Hagee…he’s ignorant on many levels, he bastardized my faith, and I have cultural resentments against people like him (all that talk about “Judeo-Christian”). But, when he talks about Israel, his perspective is in agreement with mine (and therefore, divinely inspired, since L sees himself as divinely inspired). This synergy is more important than anything else, and L knows he needs this wing of American Christianity to help ensure that continued all-out support of Israel remains US policy, so he makes the bargain.

Lieberman regards these calculations as the wisdom of statesmanship and the burden he bears as a guardian of the Jewish people, who are, like Orwell’s pigs, “more equal than others”.

No, RealName isn't capable of irony. He's Salon's village idiot, but not as nice.

Jews should swear a loyalty oath to the US

And if they refuse, there's Gitmo or the ocean.

-- RealName

`

RN, you're being ironic aren't you?

And if they refuse, there's Gitmo or the ocean.

Israel is as nationalist/socialist a country I can think of for a "liberal democracy".

I had written "national socialism", by which I meant pan-Arab socialisms like Baathism which are partially indebted to Nazi thinking. Israel has a long history of Social Democracy (and experimentation with non-coercive socialism), and of course its people are nationalist, but unless you think countries like England and France aren't liberal democracies there is no call for your scare quotes.

Yet I've never heard Gore taken to task for this egregiously horrid choice for a running mate.

Then, you haven't read enough of the comment sections in liberal blogs. Many progressive folks have taken Gore to task (severely) for that very decision, and then some go ahead an pile on about his being married to Tipper... just for good measure. That's a bit much.

I seriously doubt that if Gore should decide to run again he would make a similarly poor choice. (For crying out loud, Lieberman was running for the Senate at the same time! I was incensed.) Nor would he have to, given the decent field of candidates...

However, at the time, it was hard for Gore to run as independently as he needed, given the Clinton saga, and the fact that people still believed in the unerring power and judgment of political consultants, etc., etc. I think a lot of their credibility has dried up to a small stream by now...

So he chose Lieberman to give himself some distance from Clinton.

If Gore runs this time, that would be great. I decided a while ago, though, that we'll just have to trust him to know whether or not he should, since he has been right about almost everything else of substance in the meantime. (As for the rest of them, I'm still considering...)