Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
December 19, 2012

No "Jewish Leaders" Headlines?

The Israel Lobby and the neocons are trying to make a case against Chuck Hagel as next U.S. Secretary of Defense. The case is bogus but it reveals some of the smear tactics behind such campaigns.

The New York Times has a piece about the non-controversy currently headlined Comments on Israel by Top Contender for Defense Secretary Are Scrutinized.

But that is not the original headline. The much more fitting first one is readable in the URL of the piece:
Indeed the voices against Hagel in that piece are from Jewish lobbying groups. Mentioned as critical of Hagel as being a not-Israel firster are "Abraham H. Foxman, the national director of the Anti-Defamation League, a Jewish advocacy organization" and "Josh Block, the chief executive of the Israel Project, a pro-Israel educational group".

As the piece fits well with the initial headline visible in the URL, one wonders why the editors felt a need to change it. Is it not allowed to expose "Jewish leaders" when they are trying to dictate U.S. policies?

Posted by b on December 19, 2012 at 9:01 UTC | Permalink


Well, gosh, bring it on.

If Obama folds on this then he is spineless.

If he tries to fight this out and loses then.... he's a loser.

But think about what it will mean if he manages to stick Hagel down the thoat of the Israeli-firsters.

If *that* happens then Abe and his fellow-travellers will really have to sit down and think long and hard about which way the winds of change are starting to blow.

So, yeah, bring it on.

Posted by: Johnboy | Dec 19 2012 12:22 utc | 1

They sure don't like it known they are behind these things. And for good reason since the surest way to undermine zionist/Jewish influence in the USA would be to point it out every time it manifested itself. Most Americans have no idea the extent all aspects of their lives are influenced by this block of the fascist power structure.

Posted by: вот так | Dec 19 2012 13:28 utc | 2

Though I should point out that Hagel wont be an improvement over his predecessors with regard to Israeli-American warmongering from the standpoint of those stuck at the business end of these fascists' guns. The main difference will probably be limited to which corporate parasites get the military contracts, perhaps a few less will go to obviously Israeli dominated companies. Maybe...

Posted by: вот так | Dec 19 2012 13:43 utc | 3

Yahoo's headline [notice how they don't mention the 'unmentionable’] Obama faces backlash on possible Hagel nomination

Posted by: Daniel Rich | Dec 19 2012 14:35 utc | 4

I'm with Johnboy on this one. In fact it could be a plot to ambush the "Israel" Lobby. If Hagel is appointed he'll (theoretically) have the legal clout of the USG behind him if he goes after his defamers in the courts. It won't be the first time "Honest" Abe and the ADL have become victims of their own bullshit. A couple smeared by the ADL sued its ass off about a decade or so ago and won about $6M. If Hagel goes after them and wins, others will follow suit - so to speak.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Dec 19 2012 16:13 utc | 5

i noticed this myself when googling 'hagel' this morning and shot off an email to a friend, i wasn't copying you i swear!

i found both link on the google page,from my notes (goolges bold and italics)

Chuck Hagel, Candidate for Defense Post, Criticized by Jewish ...
12 hours ago – Jewish advocacy groups appear to be to pressuring the White House to think twice about nominating Chuck Hagel, officials on Capitol Hill said.

btw, the original title is still glaringly on top of the article's browser page because of that url.

the only additional point i made was

note hagel's " Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here" and then how they list jewish people /orgs intimidating (j street calls it slandering), basically proving he's right. they don't say, israel supporter so and so, they say and list jews. so wtf?

Posted by: annie | Dec 19 2012 17:47 utc | 6

looks like he's out?

Posted by: nikon | Dec 19 2012 19:16 utc | 7

looks like he's out?

please, are you looking at the Moony Times for a glimpse into the future?

Posted by: dan of steele | Dec 19 2012 20:56 utc | 8

If Hagel should stumble, Michèle Angelique Flournoy, the former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, is standing by just as she was when that fool Panetta was nominated and accepted. For one thing, her nomination would balance the expected he-for-she at State. Another thing, we haven't heard from the Zionist Jeffrey Goldberg yet.

The Israeli lobby has a perfect record going into this affair, and this will be a test. Even avoiding it would be a setback, albeit minor. It may be the best they can get.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Dec 19 2012 22:53 utc | 9

Just a coupla points about this storm in a teacup (for that is what it is anyone considered viable by prez or senate for this position is by definition unsuitable appointee from whom the best that could expected would be 'more of the same').
The pix of oblamblam n Hegel in the illegally confiscated from Palestine, sunni ruled shia community, aka englander colony Jordan, shows oblamblam wearing a red tie and Hegel wearing a blue one i.e. Hegel advertising his status as a lefty rethug & oblammer a rightist dem. a pair of sheep in sheep's clothing busy sucking wolf cock for sure.

The other contradiction is that the NYT article firstly says:

Those comments, in particular, have drawn the ire of Jewish leaders, who say they raise questions about Mr. Hagel’s commitment to Israel and have propagated unsavory stereotypes about Israel’s influence over American foreign policy.

but then when it wants to ping hegel it says:
Speaking of groups like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which advocates for Israel, Mr. Hagel said, “The Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here.” Critics faulted both his implication that lawmakers are bullied and his use of the phrase “Jewish” rather than “Israel,” suggesting that all advocates for Israel are Jewish. Senators from both parties have expressed discomfort with his choice of words.

So when the NYT describes zionists as 'jews' that is OK, if Hegel does the same that is a hanging offence?
I can still remember the shit the left got into over so called 'political correctness' yet this regime language fascism by conservatives makes preference of conveners over chairmen, a mere light hearted gag by comparison.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Dec 19 2012 23:16 utc | 10

@Debs is Dead #10:

"anyone considered viable by prez or senate for this position is by definition unsuitable appointee from whom the best that could expected would be 'more of the same'"

I agree with this statement 100%.
DID, there is a saying in the Turkish language from the great Turkish poet, Pir Sultan Abdal: "One cannot be the 'functioning' wheel in an otherwise broken machinery!"

PS. May I ask you an irrelevant question? Why would you pick this nick name? You hardly sound like a person who would pick Eugene Debs' death news as his nickname?

Posted by: Pirouz_2 | Dec 20 2012 0:51 utc | 11

"If Obama folds on this then he is spineless"

You gotta be shittin' me. If he hasn't already proven to you that he's spineless, then you are simply not paying attention. You see any of the fucking Bush CRIMNINALS facing indictment??? Languishing in jail??? Hanging from an oak?

Oh, uh, gee, I forgot, we're supposed tro be "looking forward".....

Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Dec 20 2012 3:55 utc | 12

Politicians can't have a spine, otherwise they won't be able to bend backward.

The crippled piston ponies run the anti-semitism express through town [again]. These dual clowns need to move to the promised land or be parachuted behind Iranian lines themselves:

"Hagel certainly does have anti-Israel, pro-appeasement-of-Iran bona fides," wrote William Kristol, editor-in-chief of The Weekly Standard, in the magazine's lead editorial this week.

"While still a senator, Hagel said that 'a military strike against Iran, a military option, is not a viable, feasible, responsible option'," noted Kristol, a co-founder of the neo-conservative Project for a New American Century (PNAC), which played a key role in beating the drums for war against Iraq one decade ago, and, more recently, the controversial Emergency Committee for Israel (ECI).

He was joined on Tuesday by two other prominent neo-conservatives known for their strong support of Netanyahu's right-wing Likud Party - Elliott Abrams, a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations who served as George W Bush's top Middle East aide, and Bret Stephens, who writes the "Global View" column in the Wall Street Journal.

Noting that Hagel had once explained to a friendly interviewer that "the Jewish Lobby intimidates a lot of people up here [in congress]," Stephens suggested that the use of that expression smelled of anti-Semitism, particularly in light of his criticisms of Israel during the second Palestinian intifada and its 2006 war in Lebanon, and his opposition to various sanctions imposed on Iran.

"...Mr Hagel's Jewish lobby remark was well in keeping with the broader pattern of his thinking," wrote Stephens, who went on to quote from an interview Hagel conducted with a retired US Mideast diplomat in 2006 as alleged evidence of the former senator's anti-Semitism or hostility to Israel.

"I'm a United States senator, not an Israeli senator," Hagel told Aaron David Miller. "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."

While such a statement would appear uncontroversial on its face, Stephens' charges were nonetheless echoed by Abraham Foxman, director of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), a pillar of the more-conventional Israel lobby.

"Chuck Hagel would not be the first, second, or third choice for the American Jewish community's friends in Israel," Foxman told neo-conservative Washington Post blogger Jennifer Rubin.

"His record relating to Israel and the US-Israel relationship is, at best, disturbing, and, at worst, very troubling," said Foxman, who added that Hagel's sentiments about the Jewish lobby border on anti-Semitism.

Asia Times n line

Posted by: Daniel Rich | Dec 20 2012 5:47 utc | 13

All sorts of "difficulties" are encountered when people try to organise boycotts of Israeli and it's products, but when Israel decides somebody else should be boycotted, there is no problem at all:

Ottawa orders Canadian scientific journals not to publish Iranian articles

"The Canadian government has reportedly ordered the scientific journals of the country not to publish articles authored by Iranian researchers and scientists, Press TV has learnt.

Iranian academics, who had primarily received an acceptance from the journals, have received new messages that notified them of the journals' decision not to publish their work due to recent policies adopted by the Canadian government.

In a recent move, the Canadian Journal of Psychiatric Nursing Research refused to publish an article by an Iranian assistant professor despite the earlier acceptance of the article.

The journal argued that it "will not be permitted to publish" the article as previously stated, citing the political and non-academic reasons. It said that Ottawa had closed down its mission in Tehran for what it called the “civil rights abuse of the citizens of Iran” and “the threat to the security of Canadian personnel and Israel.”

On September 7, the Canadian government closed its embassy in Tehran and ordered Iranian diplomats to leave Canada within five days."

Canada has probably been subverted even more than the USA.

Posted by: вот так | Dec 20 2012 15:14 utc | 14

An interesting example of damaging past zionist influence (it's almost always damaging), and the eventual positive results of overriding that harmful influence, juxtaposing the experiences of Palestine with that of the Crimea.

Autumn in Crimea

"The Tatars make up only 15% of the Crimean population, and yet are found at every level of economic life: they drive taxis, teach, practice medicine and grow vegetables. In short, these people have successfully integrated with the local population of Crimea with a minimum of fuss. Someday the deportation will be remembered as little more than a bad dream.

Perhaps now Israeli readers will understand that al Awda does not have to be a disaster, but can be a new opportunity. Perhaps now Israeli readers will be able to stomach the line I wrote twenty years ago: “inshallah the Palestinian refugees will also find their way back to their villages.”

The Ukrainian generosity in dealing with their refugee issue shames Israel’s miserliness; their deportees are now home, while Israelis still do not consider the Nakba a crime, and even the most enlightened Israelis reject the Awda."

Posted by: вот так | Dec 20 2012 16:01 utc | 15

Interesting how this is panning out.

Back when Chas Freeman was being tarred and feathered the Israeli-firsters had to work around the issue i.e. they attacked Freeman over comments he made regarding China, even though none of them had ever shown any interest whatsoever regarding Chinese dissent.

Think about it: Freeman was small-fry compared to Hagel, yet his critics still felt the need for "plausible deniability" against the claim that they were gunnin' for him b.e.c.a.u.s.e. he wouldn't pledge fealty to Israel.

Not so with Hagel, with whom they have to come straight to the point i.e. he won't put Israel first, and for that he Must Not Hold This Office.

Man, that's dangerous for the Lobby.

It's dangerous because it means that as far as the Lobby is concerned you can't hold high office unless you are willing to pledge fealty to a foreign power.

This might well be a fight the Israel-firsters will reject picking.

Posted by: Johnboy | Dec 20 2012 22:05 utc | 16


It's known as hubris. A mindset that eventually overtakes all colonial powers.

Posted by: вот так | Dec 20 2012 23:03 utc | 17

Spineless? Are you guys daft? Obomba peaceprize is no more spineless that Jr. Was dumb....
They play by an entirely different set of rules and have an entirely different set of reality tunnels from which the rule. Their "law makers" in other words, gods into themselves. You just pay your taxes and shut the fuck up...

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Dec 21 2012 5:58 utc | 18

They're not

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Dec 21 2012 7:28 utc | 19

@18 Sooo, what's your point, $cam?

That policy makers are amoral, and work from a completely different set of "principles" that the great unwashed?

Sure, they do. Of course they do.

But however amoral or unprincipled Obama may be, he can't possibly *like* being told what to do by a bunch of reactionaries whose loyalties are - at the very best - rather "conflicted".

He can't really *like* the idea that his balls are in the hands of people who take their queues - if not their marching orders - from a turd of a Prime Minister of a pissant little proto-fascist country.

Part of the secret for their success is that they can deny their success; they can deny that they have the influence that they do, and that their wield that influence for the real reason that they do i.e. because the Likud wants them to.

Posted by: Johnboy | Dec 21 2012 10:38 utc | 20


"He can't really *like* the idea that his balls are in the hands of people who take their queues - if not their marching orders - from a turd of a Prime Minister of a pissant little proto-fascist country."

He was with Rahm, wasn't he? He loves it.

Posted by: вот так | Dec 21 2012 17:54 utc | 21

@Pirouz_2 fwiw the nym is a reference to the reality (however unpalatable we may find it) that the philosophy of gene debs who I consider to have been one of the few 'great' amerikans is as dead as the fuckin dodo.
I don't like it much, but we have to accept this and move on. If we want to live a life of principled humanism, we must use dreams and the means to achieve them that today's peeps can take on board.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Dec 21 2012 23:51 utc | 22

@ Debs is dead [#22]

Q: If we want to live a life of principled humanism, we must use dreams and the means to achieve them that today's peeps can take on board.

R: I agree. Nevertheless, how much dreams fit within that framework of a voluptuous future, filled with throngs of harmony chasing human beings, who can't seem to lose their unfaltering appetite for fake reality TV?

Posted by: Daniel Rich | Dec 22 2012 0:54 utc | 23

Principled humanism nachos is the answer. To be eaten while watching principled humanism reality shows.

Posted by: dh | Dec 22 2012 1:37 utc | 24

He can't really *like* the idea that his balls are in the hands of people

sadly he fits into the category of House Negro

btw, House Negro behavior does not mean you have to be black. I submit that all politicians exhibit this behavior.

oddly enough, if I were to identify with any US politician based on background and upbringing I would choose John Boehner, but he seems to have completely abandoned his roots and could not be further from me ideologically.

Posted by: dan of steele | Dec 22 2012 8:47 utc | 25

Back when Chas Freeman was being tarred and feathered the Israeli-firsters had to work around the issue i.e. they attacked Freeman over comments he made regarding China, even though none of them had ever shown any interest whatsoever regarding Chinese dissent.

Well, they have changed the attack as well and all the talking heads are following faithfully. the only thing scarier than the zionist lobby is the militant homosexual movement....or so think the editors of the Moony Times. the angle now is that Hagel considered someone a bit too flamboyant to be an ambassador for the United States. I wonder what the folks at Washington Times would have thought if Nixon had appointed Liberace ambassador to Luxemburg.

Posted by: dan of steele | Dec 22 2012 9:04 utc | 26

Well heck, why not have a flamboyantly gay man representing the United States in some foreign land??? Heck, when we can have a fuckin' monkey for a President, such as George Bush, or have a President bangin' an aide in the Oval Office with a cigar.....

Seems kinda tame, really, having a mere swisher as an Ambassador.

Interesting...really. Read an L.A. Times opinion piece decrying Hagel's use of the term "jewish lobby". Then, further on down in the piece, the author refers to Israel as "the jewish state".


Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Dec 24 2012 3:58 utc | 27

I see Schumer is throwing Hagel under the bus. No suprise, speaking of "spineless".

Anyone keeping in touch with Clemons??? He was hot on Hagel. Has he had the balls to use his pulpit at The Atlantic to pitch for Hagel???? Somehow I doubt it.

Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Dec 24 2012 4:02 utc | 28

Come on POA! ...Clemons stepping up to defend Hagel even though he got damp pants praising Hagel's political skill sets just a few years ago! You're joking. Clemons has proven himself to be a political opportunist of the worst kind. You and I know that beyond a doubt. Please stop being coy and start calling a spade a spade. The man has proven himself to be a political whore.

Posted by: arthurdecco | Dec 24 2012 5:02 utc | 29

Just to be clear - I wasn't yelling AT you, POA; I was passionately AGREEING with you in my normal over-the-top manner. heh heh

Posted by: arthurdecco | Dec 24 2012 5:26 utc | 30

Actually, a cursory search found Clemons defending Hagel's stances on gay rights. When I get a chance, I'll do a search and see what he has to say, if anything, about Hagel's alleged "anti-semitism". As you well know, my respect for Clemons waned considerably when he shut down comments on his blog, and was kissing Maddow's ass on a regular basis. In my opinion, the man is a total sell-out.

Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Dec 24 2012 22:03 utc | 31

Without even checking Hagel's stunning record as a US war hero, multiple Purple Hearts and all, the simple fact that the Israel Lobby, supreme traitors to our own country, hates him and has been trying every step of the way to derail his nomination, is the BEST possible evidence that he's the man for the job.

When traitors and double agents for a foreign rogue state oppose someone that bad, it means he is a true patriot and exactly what they do NOT want: a man who can't be bought, intimidated, and corrupted by Israel.

Posted by: Cynthia | Dec 27 2012 1:28 utc | 32

@ Cynthia [#32]

Once receiving flak [German 88mm anti-aircraft + anti-tank gun, WW II] one is approaching one's target. It was true then and it is true now. You are very right in stating that he's the best for the job [Hagel], for all the reasons you've mentioned. I've come a long way, but fuck Israel and everything it stands for as a nation. A horrible stain on man's currently written page of future history. Add the 'world community' and its inability to stand up for what's right to that hideous ink spot as well. Unflippin' believable.

Posted by: Daniel Rich | Dec 27 2012 1:53 utc | 33

Hagel voted:

For the Afghan war and continued supporting that war till around 2011 - Senate Joint Resolution 23.

For the Iraq war - Iraq Resolution, but later decided against that one when it started looking bad for him politically (around 2006, a late bloomer - even fascist Juan Cole had cut his losses years before that).

For the 2001 Patriot Act and reauthorisation in 2006.

For the war against Yugoslavia - Kosovo Resolution (to put U.S. troops into Yugoslavia).

For the various American offensive ABM authorisations.

For all the National Defense Authorization Acts while senator.

To authorise Homeland Security (basically, an Israeli occupation army).

For Protect America Act of 2007 - an expansion of surveillance and other police state legal abilities.

For no Habeas corpus, the right to due process, at the war criminal Guantanamo Bay torture camp. In other words, to continue the crimes as is.

Hagel is no different from any other AIPAC stooge in American politics. He voted fascist and ziofascist when it was important to the establishment, then pretended "he goofed" and "now sees the light" when such policies have already done the damage intended and his "change of mind" means little (much like the zionist western media reporting Iraq didn't have WMDs afterall, years later, once the lies were no longer needed and it was far too late).

The zionist hysteria is almost all a smokescreen. A phony controversy to keep the gullible busy working on a meaningless issue. There is no real substance to it. This kind of hype over a loyal establishment figure is always a circus act.

Posted by: вот так | Dec 27 2012 5:28 utc | 34


I stand corrected, He's now off my agenda. Thanks for bringing it up.

Posted by: Daniel Rich | Dec 27 2012 5:55 utc | 35

Bot Tak 34:) Thanks for the research, enlightening!

Posted by: ben | Dec 27 2012 15:25 utc | 36

Humans of the Year

"Eleven individuals were selected by the JTA staff on the basis of what they are not: they are not Jews. They were also selected on the basis of how they served Jewish interests.

To become a “Gentile of the year” all French-born choreographer Benjamin Millepied had to do was marry one of Hollywood’s most fetching actresses — Natalie Portman. Obviously the bar is quite low for Gentiles to ingratiate themselves with JTA staff."

Posted by: вот так | Dec 30 2012 18:25 utc | 37

The comments to this entry are closed.